Medium Format Film Vs. Digital Photography

A comparison of the Contax 645 vs. EOS R. Hopefully you guys enjoyed this one!

Favorite Gear for Filmmaking :

// Website and Instagram //

[dragonfist]

Just because you shoot film doesn't automatically make it a good image. Finally someone said it. 👍🏾

[TonyWodarck]

Love this Sam. I'd suggest metering at 320 if you're metering at 400 typically. You mentioned some of your shots being underexposed, this will help with that. Kirk Mastin of Mastin Labs has this Film Nominal Speed ISO chart that states the best speed to rate each film stock at. He says Portra 400 is best at 320. Might be worth giving it a try. Love your work and thanks for making these videos.

[keonisailer]

What strikes me about your images is how you can edit the digital pictures and they almost look like the medium format film. Obviously the depth is different but how do you match your editing style to the film 🤔🤔 it’s fantastic. Love the video!

[Z_EOS]

Now grab canon 50/1.2 and let's do it again... Great photos and video man! But don't compare full frame with zoom and midium format with prime 😉

[JG_]

Looking at purely the image quality capabilities, the 120 film will always be better than any digital camera available. But only with the right lenses, film stock, and lab technology. A Pentax 67 can run Kodak Vision3 65mm film through it, which is the same type that an IMAX camera uses, and the film planes are nearly the same size. Which dwarfs even the largest medium format digital sensors. And if you get this Kodak film developed and scanned in the same way that Hollywood does (which is expensive) you will get results better than anything you'd even see in high end digital cinema cameras. I've heard that the Vision3 70mm can be pushed to look like 3200 ISO with fast lenses. The shots have at least 20 stops of dynamic range, and are theoretically scannable up to ~12k in resolution. The color depth is so good most people hardly even need to grade their shots. Now none of this is super practical for every day work, but it's interesting to think about the fact that the 30-50 year old $800 medium format stills cameras will basically be future proof. People need to make some new lenses for them.

[codyandvictoria]

Amazing images in this one dude! I need to go shoot some portraits now...

[edgarfguerra]

I've been following you for years and the second you started shooting film I had noticed that your vision of photographing things had changed for the better.

Thank you for spreading your knowledge and evolution of your art to us!

[pedromaciel]

hey man, make a comparison of medium format and 35mm, love your videos man!!!!

[werke_und_tage]

To be fair you should compare your Contax 80 f2 with a 50mm f1.2 on the Canon. This will give you the same depth of field.

[simeonkolev]

The equivalent in 35mm sensor for the 80 2.0 planar on 645 is a 50 1.2 lens. I have made this comparison for myself with Mamiya 645 and 80 1.9 against sony a7r and Canon FDn 50 1.2 L. It is exactly the same BUT :) color negative films are much much better in capturing realistic and pleasing to the eye colors and detail. It was pretty hard editing the digital pictures to get the same result in some cases like back light, strong contrast scenes, sunset light is much better captured on film, digital cameras tend to turn the red-orange colors to yellow pretty easy.

[julioestebanperezescudero]

I think in this particular test, you should use equivalent apertura related to the format size. For a full frame 35 mm f 1.4 is equivalent to f 2.8, the depth of field should be close. But a zoom lens will give a completely different rendition rendering the test useless. May be you your repeat the test wit the right parameters.

[luissalazar]

I truly like the way you explain it
And you are the few out there who look on what you’re doing. Most people they just hold the camera and let the camera do the work. And they call them self professional photographer. I love film

[shutterlag]

what I've discovered is that as I grow as a photographer and editor the more they both look the same. This seems to back that up to me. They are different looking but could easily be made to look even more alike. That's just consistency I guess. I want to need a nice Hasselblad, but I just don't think I do lol... The only thing I think I really prefer film for still is BW documentary style. It's hard/not fun to reproduce the serendipity and grain of that style of photography.

[kielypie]

Beautiful video, beautiful model, beautiful cameras. Love it.

[gottanikoncamera]

A fairer comparison would have been to use the 50/1.2 which is what the 80/2 Planar is comparable to. And Mastin Lab Portra presets for Canon which are calibrated to emulate Frontier scans.
I enjoy your content. Esp your FJ60.

[riccardotosatto]

digging the tones from film, but you do a good job in editing bro! Would love to see an editing video/your workflow🙏🏻thank yaa

[okyeabuddyguy]

I guess DoF difference can be closely matched with 645 on full frame digital though, just shoot an F1.4 prime. Especially adapt a vintage 1.4 prime and manual focus the shot at the same ISO as the film with IBIS off = something much closer to the sharpness of the film shot. If people want similar results on digital we have to actually put the effort in to match the depth of field and optical characteristics and focus conditions.

[Theeuanshields]

The big reason I don’t shoot digital is the constant amount of upgrades companies push. Luckily film cameras, to a degree, aren’t made anymore so you can get the best camera for a fraction of the price. For me I only use medium format and I haven’t got a need to upgrade. I love using my mamiya rz67 and 645 afd and I see myself using them far into the future. Long live film !!!

[gilpineda]

they can technically look the same by framing subjects the same way only way to differenciate them is with the amount of detail the medium format gives love this

[Mikri]

I was immediately disappointed with the lens choice for the EOS R.


Why the boring 24-70?


Otherwise, nice shots.