Is MFT equal to film?

Started 3 weeks ago | Discussions
Humansvillian
Humansvillian Senior Member • Posts: 1,950
Is MFT equal to film?
1

From what I’ve read, the ability to grade shadows is still better on film cameras than most all digital cameras.

But 4K video is just taking lots of 8mp pictures, and the more common 1080 video is taking a lot of 2mp pictures.  I’ve not heard any complaints that digital video is less capable than film.

So does my 16mp Olympus P5 with a 17mm f1.8 lens  equal a 35mm rangefinder for overall use as a camera?

If we’ve already got the equal of what a similar size film camera delivered in performance, then shouldn’t we call the gear good enough, and just take pictures?

Your comments are always appreciated.

-- hide signature --

Humansville is a town in the Missouri Ozarks

 Humansvillian's gear list:Humansvillian's gear list
Olympus TG-5 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro +10 more
Adielle
Adielle Senior Member • Posts: 1,706
Re: Is MFT equal to film?
9

No, it's not, and film is not equal to MFT either. And there are (or were) many film brands, and they were definitely not equal to each other.

Humansvillian
OP Humansvillian Senior Member • Posts: 1,950
I love a riddle solving an enigma

But what’s unequal as compared to film of this cropped shot of one of my wife’s chickens, as compared with film?

Serama rooster, severely cropped

The rooster looks pretty cocky, and it’s easier to use MFT than film.

How would film differ?

-- hide signature --

Humansville is a town in the Missouri Ozarks

 Humansvillian's gear list:Humansvillian's gear list
Olympus TG-5 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro +10 more
Adielle
Adielle Senior Member • Posts: 1,706
Re: I love a riddle solving an enigma
2

Humansvillian wrote:

But what’s unequal as compared to film of this cropped shot of one of my wife’s chickens, as compared with film?

Serama rooster, severely cropped

The rooster looks pretty cocky, and it’s easier to use MFT than film.

How would film differ?

The rooster would still be cocky, but the picture would not be equal.

Humansvillian
OP Humansvillian Senior Member • Posts: 1,950
Perhaps equivalence would be a better term

There are differences between digital and film images, for certain.

But would a chicken shot with film be the equivalent of a fowl imaged with photosites?

A strange bird


Humansville is a town in the Missouri Ozarks

 Humansvillian's gear list:Humansvillian's gear list
Olympus TG-5 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro +10 more
Adielle
Adielle Senior Member • Posts: 1,706
Re: Perhaps equivalence would be a better term
2

Humansvillian wrote:

There are differences between digital and film images, for certain.

But would a chicken shot with film be the equivalent of a fowl imaged with photosites?

A strange bird


Humansville is a town in the Missouri Ozarks

Now you've done it, you used the E word. Now you've done it......

NoTx Senior Member • Posts: 1,983
Re: Is MFT equal to film?
16

It's a weird question in essence. The reality is that it is different. For example the number of colora I believe film will win. True useable dynamic range, iso? In 90% of cases modern m43 destroys film. Though 10%... some black and white film could have really weird flexability that was based more on processing than anything else.

Where m43 blows away 35mm film... and often 645, is in enlargements. The quality of enlargements and limitations is insane.

Film and digital are however very different art forms.

-- hide signature --

Rob aka NoTx...
-Always searching

nzmacro
nzmacro Forum Pro • Posts: 16,319
Of what film
7

ASA 12 photomicrographic film, K25, Fujichrome 50, TRI-X 400, etc, etc.

I'm not sure how you would compare them all to be honest. I certainly wouldn't go back, put it that way

I'll stick to m4/3, FF and APS-C sensors anyday.

Danny.

 nzmacro's gear list:nzmacro's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Olympus E-M1 Sony a7 Olympus E-M1 II +6 more
Lights
Lights Veteran Member • Posts: 3,605
Re: Is MFT equal to film?

I think film and digital tonal responses are different and much is in personal preference and even in various shots in comparison, and certainly in the variations between films and the film (and digital) formats. I've seen comparisons between high quality film vs digital cameras on the same subjects, and they are different even in the hands of photographers proficient in both. Really thinking that this question, although interesting,  is almost too complicated to answer, or that there are too many different answers.

-- hide signature --

My Galleries are here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights

The Joker: Why so serious?

Adielle
Adielle Senior Member • Posts: 1,706
Re: Is MFT equal to film?
1

Lights wrote:

I think film and digital tonal responses are different and much is in personal preference and even in various shots in comparison, and certainly in the variations between films and the film (and digital) formats. I've seen comparisons between high quality film vs digital cameras on the same subjects, and they are different even in the hands of photographers proficient in both. Really thinking that this question, although interesting, is almost too complicated to answer, or that there are too many different answers.

Not really. It's very simple to answer: "No".

Lights
Lights Veteran Member • Posts: 3,605
Re: Is MFT equal to film?
3

Adielle wrote:

Lights wrote:

I think film and digital tonal responses are different and much is in personal preference and even in various shots in comparison, and certainly in the variations between films and the film (and digital) formats. I've seen comparisons between high quality film vs digital cameras on the same subjects, and they are different even in the hands of photographers proficient in both. Really thinking that this question, although interesting, is almost too complicated to answer, or that there are too many different answers.

Not really. It's very simple to answer: "No".

well I think that;s what I kinda said, maybe with a few too many words.

-- hide signature --

My Galleries are here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
The Joker: Why so serious?

tassienick Contributing Member • Posts: 988
Re: Is MFT equal to film?
6

I shoot both extensively (Pen F and a bunch of Pentax, Leica and Hasselblad film gear), and I do so for a reason - they're just different. The process is different, the gear is very different, the output is different. MFT is good at some things, film is good at other.

There's also a massive difference in quality and rendering between 35mm film and medium format (likewise half-frame and large format, but I haven't used those). So saying 'film' doesn't mean much.

If I'm shooting orchids with a macro, it's always the Pen F. If I'm shooting street, it's always the Leica with HP5+ or similar.

Humansvillian wrote:

From what I’ve read, the ability to grade shadows is still better on film cameras than most all digital cameras.

But 4K video is just taking lots of 8mp pictures, and the more common 1080 video is taking a lot of 2mp pictures. I’ve not heard any complaints that digital video is less capable than film.

So does my 16mp Olympus P5 with a 17mm f1.8 lens equal a 35mm rangefinder for overall use as a camera?

There's so many factors to this it's impossible to say. Are you talking about image quality (and if so, which aspect of image quality?), are you talking about ergonomics and UI, are you talking about lenses? My Pen F is a much more efficient tool than my Leica M2, but I much prefer using the M2...

Donald B
Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 13,027
Re: Is MFT equal to film?
5

Adielle wrote:

Lights wrote:

I think film and digital tonal responses are different and much is in personal preference and even in various shots in comparison, and certainly in the variations between films and the film (and digital) formats. I've seen comparisons between high quality film vs digital cameras on the same subjects, and they are different even in the hands of photographers proficient in both. Really thinking that this question, although interesting, is almost too complicated to answer, or that there are too many different answers.

Not really. It's very simple to answer: "No".

Digital is way ahead and has been for 15 years

Don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM5mk2 ,EM1mk2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1

Lights
Lights Veteran Member • Posts: 3,605
Re: Is MFT equal to film?
2

Donald B wrote:

Adielle wrote:

Lights wrote:

I think film and digital tonal responses are different and much is in personal preference and even in various shots in comparison, and certainly in the variations between films and the film (and digital) formats. I've seen comparisons between high quality film vs digital cameras on the same subjects, and they are different even in the hands of photographers proficient in both. Really thinking that this question, although interesting, is almost too complicated to answer, or that there are too many different answers.

Not really. It's very simple to answer: "No".

Digital is way ahead and has been for 15 years

Don

Of course I don't agree. I just think they are different. It all depends even resolution wise on which formats one is comparing. A large film view camera in comparison has very high resolution with certain film, in comparison especially  to smaller digital formats. The ease of use, I'd agree digital is superior and is very good..but some people are looking also for different looks and tonal gradations are certainly different between, which you may or may not prefer...it's like comparing apples to oranges, or cars to one another.. I certainly don't think there is a definitive answer. I've spent a great deal of time trying to emulate film with digital, for certain "looks" and a person, and software engineers can come close, but not exactly. Sometime google a comparison between the Leica Monochrom with a Leica film rangefinder using Trix-X( (I believe)  and see the difference. How you, or I look, or others  at "superior" may be  differing things It's called 'taste' and we each have our own.

-- hide signature --

My Galleries are here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights

The Joker: Why so serious?

Donald B
Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 13,027
Re: Is MFT equal to film?

Lights wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Adielle wrote:

Lights wrote:

I think film and digital tonal responses are different and much is in personal preference and even in various shots in comparison, and certainly in the variations between films and the film (and digital) formats. I've seen comparisons between high quality film vs digital cameras on the same subjects, and they are different even in the hands of photographers proficient in both. Really thinking that this question, although interesting, is almost too complicated to answer, or that there are too many different answers.

Not really. It's very simple to answer: "No".

Digital is way ahead and has been for 15 years

Don

Of course I don't agree. I just think they are different. It all depends even resolution wise on which formats one is comparing. A large film view camera in comparison has very high resolution with certain film, in comparison especially to smaller digital formats. The ease of use, I'd agree digital is superior and is very good..but some people are looking also for different looks and tonal gradations are certainly different between, which you may or may not prefer...it's like comparing apples to oranges, or cars to one another.. I certainly don't think there is a definitive answer. I've spent a great deal of time trying to emulate film with digital, for certain "looks" and a person, and software engineers can come close, but not exactly. Sometime google a comparison between the Leica Monochrom with a Leica film rangefinder using Trix-X( (I believe) and see the difference. How you, or I look, or others at "superior" may be differing things It's called 'taste' and we each have our own.

For starters I wouldn't even be able to capture the images I take on film. So film doesn't even cone close.

Don

-- hide signature --

My Galleries are here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
The Joker: Why so serious?

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM5mk2 ,EM1mk2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1

Lights
Lights Veteran Member • Posts: 3,605
Re: Is MFT equal to film?

Donald B wrote:

Lights wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Adielle wrote:

Lights wrote:

I think film and digital tonal responses are different and much is in personal preference and even in various shots in comparison, and certainly in the variations between films and the film (and digital) formats. I've seen comparisons between high quality film vs digital cameras on the same subjects, and they are different even in the hands of photographers proficient in both. Really thinking that this question, although interesting, is almost too complicated to answer, or that there are too many different answers.

Not really. It's very simple to answer: "No".

Digital is way ahead and has been for 15 years

Don

Of course I don't agree. I just think they are different. It all depends even resolution wise on which formats one is comparing. A large film view camera in comparison has very high resolution with certain film, in comparison especially to smaller digital formats. The ease of use, I'd agree digital is superior and is very good..but some people are looking also for different looks and tonal gradations are certainly different between, which you may or may not prefer...it's like comparing apples to oranges, or cars to one another.. I certainly don't think there is a definitive answer. I've spent a great deal of time trying to emulate film with digital, for certain "looks" and a person, and software engineers can come close, but not exactly. Sometime google a comparison between the Leica Monochrom with a Leica film rangefinder using Trix-X( (I believe) and see the difference. How you, or I look, or others at "superior" may be differing things It's called 'taste' and we each have our own.

For starters I wouldn't even be able to capture the images I take on film. So film doesn't even cone close.

Don

Well I'd agree with that...especially in low light shots, and in other cases too. Most film cameras don't have shutter speeds to 1/8000 and digital is way better at high ISO. But there is a difference in how they render, whether one is superior I don't know,, it depends on the look the photographer is after. That's the part I think really is hard to compare, and a lot of people are still shooting film for that reason. Digital has lots of advantages in many regards...but don't know how they can be compared in all regards.

By the way, you really have some nice shots in your gallery.

-- hide signature --

My Galleries are here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
The Joker: Why so serious?

Adielle
Adielle Senior Member • Posts: 1,706
Re: Is MFT equal to film?

Donald B wrote:

Adielle wrote:

Lights wrote:

I think film and digital tonal responses are different and much is in personal preference and even in various shots in comparison, and certainly in the variations between films and the film (and digital) formats. I've seen comparisons between high quality film vs digital cameras on the same subjects, and they are different even in the hands of photographers proficient in both. Really thinking that this question, although interesting, is almost too complicated to answer, or that there are too many different answers.

Not really. It's very simple to answer: "No".

Digital is way ahead and has been for 15 years

Don

Obviously, but that's just one part of why the answer is "No".

Henry Falkner
Henry Falkner Forum Pro • Posts: 14,687
Re: Is MFT equal to film?

Last time I used film it was Kodacolor 400 ASA 35mm. I struggled to get noise-free 1500x1000 pixel scans from those films.

From my E-M10 II I get camera originals at 2500 ISO that will enlarge 3x for 33x23 inch prints tolerating inspection with a magnifier. I have a 33x23 inch print from this one:

Film that can do the same would be 5x4 inch sheet film.

Henry

-- hide signature --

Henry Falkner - E-M10 Mark II, SH-1, SH-50, SP-570UZ
http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner

 Henry Falkner's gear list:Henry Falkner's gear list
Olympus SP-570 UZ Olympus SH-50 Olympus Stylus SH-1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
Donald B
Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 13,027
Re: Is MFT equal to film?

Lights wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Lights wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Adielle wrote:

Lights wrote:

I think film and digital tonal responses are different and much is in personal preference and even in various shots in comparison, and certainly in the variations between films and the film (and digital) formats. I've seen comparisons between high quality film vs digital cameras on the same subjects, and they are different even in the hands of photographers proficient in both. Really thinking that this question, although interesting, is almost too complicated to answer, or that there are too many different answers.

Not really. It's very simple to answer: "No".

Digital is way ahead and has been for 15 years

Don

Of course I don't agree. I just think they are different. It all depends even resolution wise on which formats one is comparing. A large film view camera in comparison has very high resolution with certain film, in comparison especially to smaller digital formats. The ease of use, I'd agree digital is superior and is very good..but some people are looking also for different looks and tonal gradations are certainly different between, which you may or may not prefer...it's like comparing apples to oranges, or cars to one another.. I certainly don't think there is a definitive answer. I've spent a great deal of time trying to emulate film with digital, for certain "looks" and a person, and software engineers can come close, but not exactly. Sometime google a comparison between the Leica Monochrom with a Leica film rangefinder using Trix-X( (I believe) and see the difference. How you, or I look, or others at "superior" may be differing things It's called 'taste' and we each have our own.

For starters I wouldn't even be able to capture the images I take on film. So film doesn't even cone close.

Don

Well I'd agree with that...especially in low light shots, and in other cases too. Most film cameras don't have shutter speeds to 1/8000 and digital is way better at high ISO. But there is a difference in how they render, whether one is superior I don't know,, it depends on the look the photographer is after. That's the part I think really is hard to compare, and a lot of people are still shooting film for that reason. Digital has lots of advantages in many regards...but don't know how they can be compared in all regards.

By the way, you really have some nice shots in your gallery.

Digital is very exacting . And that's the main advantage. It to also can ruin the candid shots of yesteryear. So when I'm in the studio I make sure I capture some of those as well. But for every day family shots their is really no difference.

Don

Don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM5mk2 ,EM1mk2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1

Adielle
Adielle Senior Member • Posts: 1,706
Re: Is MFT equal to film?

You need to apply at least some kind of noise reduction to the film image to have a kind of fair comparison. You're not exactly gonna get a usable picture from the E-M10 III at ISO 2500 without at least some chroma denoising. Well, unless you like obvious chroma noise.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads