Film Medium Format Cameras

[Kayaker72]

Oh...by the way. I dropped off my first roll of 120 yesterday. Asked when I might expect them, as it was all tests to check focus, checking my ability to expose properly, etc.

Yeah, week.....week and a half. They'll call me.

Film

[Jonathan Huyer]

Yeah, week.....week and a half. They'll call me.
Film

Ha ha but now you get to relive the nostalgia of waiting for prints! I took a few trips in the film days, bringing several dozen rolls with me. It was always a nerve-wracking time, carrying them carefully in x-ray proof bags and guarding them closer than your passport. Then dropping them all off at the developer and pacing back and forth for a week, wondering if any would turn out. Good memories!

[Kayaker72]

Limit 5 images per post (when directly uploading) so:

6)

7)

OK...yes, we still had some Christmas decorations up in mid-January.

These are straight out of camera for the R5 and Sigma 50A. No modifications other than making the aspect ratio 4:3 to match 645. The MF images were scanned on my Epson V850 using Silverfast default settings. Only adjustments in LR was cloning dust (...and do new negatives attract dust!).

As for the key:
1) R5 and 50A f/1.4
2) Mamiya 80 f/1.9
3) Mamiya f/2.8
4) R5 f/2
5) Mamiya f/4
6) R5 f/2.2
7) R5 f/1.4

Ok, first, the equivalence of 645 f/1.9 for FF is f/1.2, but I do not own a 50 f/1.2 lens. But then some mistakes as I was rushing, 645 f/2.8 FF equivalence is f/1.7, I didn't shoot f/1.7. Also 645 f/4 equivalence is f/2.5, the closest I shot was f/2.2. There are also a few exposure issues as I was trying to adjust shutterspeeds to get the same exposure on the fly.

But, overall, you get the picture.

First conclusion. The MF images are not awful (IMO). I was prepared for them to be whether it be some sort of light leak in camera or to just totally miss exposure. They are underexposed, but I'll take it for the first attempt.


As for the differences:

• Check out the window in #1 and #2. I have heard it a couple of times now, but film holds highlight/white detail better. That sure seemed to be the case. Granted, there is an exposure issue between 1&2, but in every image I took with the window, with film, I can see details, with digital, I don't. I used 1&2 here to line up bokeh. But yes, this would be more conclusive is the exposure was identical.

If interested, here is #2 brought up a stop (and greens adjusted to better color match)

• The second item I've heard repeatedly, but film shadows are crushed. Definitely see something, but this could also be on exposure.
• Color is definitely different. Overall, I think the R5 was more accurate. However, what interests me is that colors from the entire scene seemed to affect the R5 image whereas with the film, each element seemed more independent. Specifically, I am looking the "A" in PEACE between 3 and 4. While I think the decorations and wall are more accurate with the R5, the metal letters have a tint that isn't there.

Otherwise, it seems to me that "equivalency" works.

Anyways, still just playing around. Hopefully I can get out and shoot some more and with a bit more experience and more preparation the tests will improve.

But now, I need to go work on my driveway....snow, sleet and freezing rain today. Yaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy.