Digital camera to replace medium format film cameras?

[samsst]

I tried GFX50s ii, wanting to replace my medium film cameras such as Pentax 645 and Mamiya 7. The experience and result is not what I expected.

I cannot give out a concrete answer with regard to what is missing. The files are great, the images not so much?! They contain tones of details and rooms to be edited, but they are too "digital" too "boring", I can't really articulate, so I think maybe the lens is the problem? (Only used the kit)

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[JimKasson]

I tried GFX50s ii, wanting to replace my medium film cameras such as Pentax 645 and Mamiya 7. The experience and result is not what I expected.

I cannot give out a concrete answer with regard to what is missing. The files are great, the images not so much?! They contain tones of details and rooms to be edited, but they are too "digital" too "boring", I can't really articulate, so I think maybe the lens is the problem? (Only used the kit)

What are your thoughts on this?

Try to be more explicit about what's missing in the GFX images. Post images from both cameras here, and tell us what you like and don't like about each image. As it is, your complaints about the GFX images are too vague for us to be of much help.

What does "too digital" mean?

 

[Mr Flip]

I tried GFX50s ii, wanting to replace my medium film cameras such as Pentax 645 and Mamiya 7. The experience and result is not what I expected.

I cannot give out a concrete answer with regard to what is missing. The files are great, the images not so much?! They contain tones of details and rooms to be edited, but they are too "digital" too "boring", I can't really articulate, so I think maybe the lens is the problem? (Only used the kit)

What are your thoughts on this?

Agree completely. GFX Perhaps least film like. Tonal personality missing. GFX tries to keep the shadows from getting too dark and produces less 3D effect. I see many images that look like the color contrast has been reduced compared to competitors.



Too much default sharpening, color hue is definitely different - reds shift to pink, yellows are more diluted, greens look plastic, default overall warm shift in overcast lighting. In certain situations blues get pushed darker. Without sharpening raw file edges have less contrast than comparable systems. Lenses tend to flare a bit more than other systems.



On landscape UK is a good resource for comparison. At the finer detail level, say 200-300%, their examples show more color gradation in film than digital. That assumes high res drum scans of course.



After a long haul of trying to get the prints where I wanted them from the GFX, I punted.



I recognize many love the system but, it’s nothing like film.



There are many great examples at the Fuji X website where one can view GFX system used in many genres. For me the color palette is an acquired taste and is “off” for natural light subjects.

 

[JimKasson]

Agree completely. GFX Perhaps least film like. Tonal personality missing. GFX tries to keep the shadows from getting too dark and produces less 3D effect. I see many images that look like the color contrast has been reduced compared to competitors.

Too much default sharpening,

Are you talking about OOC JPEGs?

color hue is definitely different - reds shift to pink, yellows are more diluted, greens look plastic, default overall warm shift in overcast lighting.

Are you talking about OOC JPEGs? If not, the color rendition is much more a property of the raw developer than the camera.

In certain situations blues get pushed darker. Without sharpening raw file edges have less contrast than comparable systems.

What other systems? I've measured extremely high MTFs for GFX 50x raw files.

Lenses tend to flare a bit more than other systems.

What other systems? Are you talking about GF lenses? Which ones?

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Digital camera to replace medium format film cameras?

I tried GFX50s ii, wanting to replace my medium film cameras such as Pentax 645 and Mamiya 7. The experience and result is not what I expected.

I cannot give out a concrete answer with regard to what is missing. The files are great, the images not so much?! They contain tones of details and rooms to be edited, but they are too "digital" too "boring", I can't really articulate, so I think maybe the lens is the problem? (Only used the kit)

What are your thoughts on this?

Your complaints are really age-old film-versus-digital complaints, related in part to relatively linear sensors versus films with distinct curves. The solution is to manipulate the digital files appropriately / to taste in the digital darkroom.

Suggestion: post a few of your GFX raw files with which you're not happy to Google Drive or similar, post a link to them in the Retouching Forum, and ask the members there to produce their best versions. I bet you'll think that some of them look great.

To get the desired results, software like Adobe Lightroom, DxO PhotoLab, and Capture One offers great power. You may well need to use the curves tool, saturation and/or vibrancy, etc. Some people are satisfied using film simulation software for the digital camera files. Products like DxO's Nik Collection and FilmPack offer that, as do a bunch of others. With those, YMMV.

Last but not least, I don't think I was alone in holding the opinion that, in terms of overall functional image quality, digital equaled or exceeded 35mm film around the time of the DSLR with a 6 MP APS-C CCD sensor, and digital equaled or exceeded 645 film around the time of the original Canon 5D with its 13 MP FF CMOS sensor. There's no good reason why, relative to medium format film, any of the current 44x33mm sensor models (GFX and others) can't produce stunning image quality. But the journey from a raw capture to a satisfactory print (or even on-screen image) involves more user work and input.

 

[Mr Flip]

It’s Fujifilm x not Fuji X. See photographer galleries and stories. My overall assessment is I think confirmed with many of those images.



thanks

 

[Mr Flip]

Hi Jim.

First, I use Silkypix converter and CO.

The default sharpening comment is only jpegs.

The color is really difficult to manage to what I am seeing in the field. It’s simply not “natural looking”, no matter what channels/curves I adjust. The colors to me are more shifting to pastels (perhaps overly saturated) at times, perhaps even “cartoon color” if that makes sense, and from my viewing the files, my take away is the color shifts, too much warm bias, lower color contrast, less color gradation/differentiation and what appears to be less edge contrast (not resolution) in many of their lenses. It’s as if Fuji decided to implement a “flat” more 2D feel with high detail and unique palette imitating its provia film.

Systems compared, D850 (compared a one stop difference in aperture f11vs f16) X1D, 4x5 (drum scanned).

Other reviewers such as Ming Thein who is much more knowledgeable and thorough than I am, came away with similar conclusions.

it’s not that the output is not pleasing (certainly with great detail) but it’s just “off” imo. Unnatural looking - not what I am seeing (within reason).

I appreciate all the great testing you have done on this and perhaps you can suggest a way to improve my understanding and results?

 

[Mr Flip]

But the journey from a raw capture to a satisfactory print (or even on-screen image) involves more user work and input.

If I may respond here. So film especially chromes are what we used to call (wyswyg). So one visualized what they would get with film and assuming correct range of exposures, the results pretty much matched. Yes maybe some touching up of drum scans including cleaning “worms” from the scan. Not usually much adjustment necessary.

With proper computer calibration and using ProRGB, assuming proper exposure, there is usually little to do other than the standard sharpening and cleaning unless someone has an extreme range of light, assuming base ISO.

I found the raw GFX files malleable enough but required far too much effort to obtain something acceptable - my own experience.

Very rarely could obtain similar results vs D850 and x1d.

 

[JimKasson]

Hi Jim.

First, I use Silkypix converter and CO.

The default sharpening comment is only jpegs.

The color is really difficult to manage to what I am seeing in the field. It’s simply not “natural looking”, no matter what channels/curves I adjust. The colors to me are more shifting to pastels (perhaps overly saturated) at times, perhaps even “cartoon color” if that makes sense, and from my viewing the files, my take away is the color shifts, too much warm bias, lower color contrast, less color gradation/differentiation and what appears to be less edge contrast (not resolution) in many of their lenses. It’s as if Fuji decided to implement a “flat” more 2D feel with high detail and unique palette imitating its provia film.

Systems compared, D850 (compared a one stop difference in aperture f11vs f16) X1D, 4x5 (drum scanned).

Other reviewers such as Ming Thein who is much more knowledgeable and thorough than I am, came away with similar conclusions.

it’s not that the output is not pleasing (certainly with great detail) but it’s just “off” imo. Unnatural looking - not what I am seeing (within reason).

I appreciate all the great testing you have done on this and perhaps you can suggest a way to improve my understanding and results?

I'd suggest try other raw converters and/or making some of your own profiles.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

But the journey from a raw capture to a satisfactory print (or even on-screen image) involves more user work and input.

So film especially chromes are what we used to call (wyswyg). So one visualized what they would get with film and assuming correct range of exposures, the results pretty much matched. Yes maybe some touching up of drum scans including cleaning “worms” from the scan. Not usually much adjustment necessary.

With proper computer calibration and using ProRGB, assuming proper exposure, there is usually little to do other than the standard sharpening and cleaning unless someone has an extreme range of light, assuming base ISO.

I found the raw GFX files malleable enough but required far too much effort to obtain something acceptable - my own experience.

There's no image one could have created 'back in the day' with transparency film, that one cannot create today with digital. But the tools to do so have changed--and the options with today's digital are far more flexible and powerful. With transparency film one had to try to adjust white balance with things like warming (or cooling) filters, and try to accommodate dynamic range with things like graduated filters.

I very much disagree with the claim that "With proper computer calibration and using ProRGB, assuming proper exposure, there is usually little to do other than the standard sharpening". Expressive / creative / artistic photography often benefits from far more than that. In my view, with digital photos, more often than not the white balance needs to be adjusted, regardless of whether the goal is 'accurate' color or subjectively-pleasing color; and more often than not, the curve (or even, separately, the R, G, and B curves) needs to be adjusted to move the white and/or black points and exposure-response relationship in between them. There are of course many other creative controls that may be desirable in any given image, with modern local adjustments providing far better control than e.g. dodging and burning ever did. (And this is to say nothing of technical fixes like fixing lens barrel distortion or noise reduction.)

If you're interested in a very basic / simplified little presentation I put together on my usual approach to digital darkroom work--I created this for my daughter's grammar school photo editing mini-elective class--I've posted it at:

https://app.box.com/s/9w2biguprhzsyz73x4mpbh0e0w3q6b1l

 

[Adam007]

What are you using for lenses? You might find that adapted lenses give you the look you're searching for.

 

[Mr Flip]

There's no image one could have created 'back in the day' with transparency film, that one cannot create today with digital.

For color work I don’t think that’s correct statement.,

But the tools to do so have changed--and the options with today's digital are far more flexible and powerful. With transparency film one had to try to adjust white balance with things like warming (or cooling) filters, and try to accommodate dynamic range with things like graduated filters.

Exactly the approach I take with digital - get it exactly correct in camera and there is less to do in PP. The effort is upfront not after the fact.

I very much disagree with the claim that "With proper computer calibration and using ProRGB, assuming proper exposure, there is usually little to do other than the standard sharpening". Expressive / creative / artistic photography often benefits from far more than that. In my view, with digital photos, more often than not the white balance needs to be adjusted, regardless of whether the goal is 'accurate' color or subjectively-pleasing color; and more often than not, the curve (or even, separately, the R, G, and B curves) needs to be adjusted to move the white and/or black points and exposure-response relationship in between them.

I will leave real creativity to painters ,sculptures and perhaps graphic artists etc. The notion of photography as a creative art is a bit overstated. It’s illustration, and my objective is not to enhance or manipulate an image from some grandiose sense of my vision, but rather to optimize what I saw within the context of the scene itself. I am looking for that special changing light and putting a hold on it with my technique. It’s rare that I change WB unless it is obviously off. There are well known photographers who dramatize landscapes with layers and many techniques with results that look nothing as it was, nor what a scene should be. Not me.

(I recall an image by a well known female photog where she pieced together a field of flowers landscape by slicing elements from 3 images using different FLs, 24,35,50, and merged them into different sections in the image.) if I can’t get an image with one shot, I walk away - look elsewhere.

There are of course many other creative controls that may be desirable in any given image, with modern local adjustments providing far better control than e.g. dodging and burning ever did. (And this is to say nothing of technical fixes like fixing lens barrel distortion or noise reduction.)

These techniques are great and appropriate for B&W, but the less manipulation I use PP, the better. With DR ranges we enjoy with FF and MFD at base ISO, it’s not clear to me why one would need to dodge/burn with color unless the exposure is off. Shadow lifting, yes to some extent. Hence, I work very hard to get the histogram where it should be and bracket on occasion. It reduces my computer time.

If you're interested in a very basic / simplified little presentation I put together on my usual approach to digital darkroom work--I created this for my daughter's grammar school photo editing mini-elective class--I've posted it at:

https://app.box.com/s/9w2biguprhzsyz73x4mpbh0e0w3q6b1l

Thank you.

 

[JimKasson]

I will leave real creativity to painters ,sculptures and perhaps graphic artists etc. The notion of photography as a creative art is a bit overstated. It’s illustration...

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[Rich42]

But the journey from a raw capture to a satisfactory print (or even on-screen image) involves more user work and input.

If I may respond here. So film especially chromes are what we used to call (wyswyg). So one visualized what they would get with film and assuming correct range of exposures, the results pretty much matched. Yes maybe some touching up of drum scans including cleaning “worms” from the scan. Not usually much adjustment necessary.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. None of it.

Chromes are what we used to call (wysiwyg)?????

The term wysiwyg didn't exist before the personal computer age.

"Chromes" were an accurate representation of the original scene? By whose standards?

Early Kodachrome had purple to black skies with many other colors wildly exaggerated. By K64 skies were cobalt blue and many photographers demanded their "Real" Kodachrome back. Ektachrome had deficiencies in every color. Agfachrome looked nothing like Kodak colors. Velvia exaggerated everything.

No color film ever produced accurate renditions of any original scene.

I've been a drum scanner operator for over 30 years. I've been involved in color reproduction in Offset Lithography and Photography for 50 years. Other than the fact that I don't have the opportunity to reshoot historical images that are on film with digital equipment (because the opportunity is gone), the arrival of digital photography has improved every aspect of color and image reproduction. Other than those historical images, I would never choose film to shoot any important image. And I wouldn't hesitate to assure a client I could nail the requirements for image quality, no matter the criteria, using digital equipment.

We couldn't come close with film technology to the quality we routinely produce now with digital cameras and methods. Not even close. And most of the image quality from the film era is trash (even in the hands of us pros back then) compared to that which even modest digital cameras are now capable of making.

(BTW, "worms with drum scans?" What worms? Are you getting confused with the problems that some older, 4/3 format Fujifilm sensors had?)

With all equipment, a certain level of competence and expertise is necessary. If someone is having trouble getting good results with equipment at the level of the GFX system, it's not the fault of the equipment.

Very simply put, for image quality, not requiring me to take out a second mortgage for gear, the GFX system is the best I have ever operated. It's not the fastest, doesn't have the range of lenses of others. But it's image quality is simply superb.

With proper computer calibration and using ProRGB, assuming proper exposure, there is usually little to do other than the standard sharpening and cleaning unless someone has an extreme range of light, assuming base ISO.

No.

I found the raw GFX files malleable enough but required far too much effort to obtain something acceptable - my own experience.

Very rarely could obtain similar results vs D850 and x1d.

Before my GFX I had D800E and D850 equipment. Great gear. I did professional work with it all day long. No complaints. No excuses. Money in the bank. Got the work done, slept well at night. In terms of ultimate image quality - no match for my GFX100S and GF lenses.

--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)

 

[SterlingBjorndahl]

I can't really articulate, so I think maybe the lens is the problem? (Only used the kit)

I think that's probably right. Try some vintage lenses and see what happens. Think of the sensor as "ultra fine grade film" in terms of dynamic range, easily capturing more DR than slide film does, and rather unforgiving at times (as fine grade film is unforgiving with some lenses). Yes there comes an exposure point where there's a cutoff due to its being binary technology, but you can easily fit the toe and shoulder of most (all?) films into its DR under reasonable lighting conditions.

I'm experiencing some old lenses in a whole new way on this body. (GFX 100S)

Best wishes,
Sterling
--
Lens Grit

 

[JimKasson]

But the journey from a raw capture to a satisfactory print (or even on-screen image) involves more user work and input.

If I may respond here. So film especially chromes are what we used to call (wyswyg). So one visualized what they would get with film and assuming correct range of exposures, the results pretty much matched. Yes maybe some touching up of drum scans including cleaning “worms” from the scan. Not usually much adjustment necessary.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. None of it.

Chromes are what we used to call (wysiwyg)?????

The term wysiwyg didn't exist before the personal computer age.

"Chromes" were an accurate representation of the original scene? By whose standards?

Early Kodachrome had purple to black skies with many other colors wildly exaggerated. By K64 skies were cobalt blue and many photographers demanded their "Real" Kodachrome back. Ektachrome had deficiencies in every color. Agfachrome looked nothing like Kodak colors. Velvia exaggerated everything.

No color film ever produced accurate renditions of any original scene.

I've been a drum scanner operator for over 30 years. I've been involved in color reproduction in Offset Lithography and Photography for 50 years. Other than the fact that I don't have the opportunity to reshoot historical images that are on film with digital equipment (because the opportunity is gone), the arrival of digital photography has improved every aspect of color and image reproduction. Other than those historical images, I would never choose film to shoot any important image. And I wouldn't hesitate to assure a client I could nail the requirements for image quality, no matter the criteria, using digital equipment.

We couldn't come close with film technology to the quality we routinely produce now with digital cameras and methods. Not even close. And most of the image quality from the film era is trash (even in the hands of us pros back then) compared to that which even modest digital cameras are now capable of making.

(BTW, "worms with drum scans?" What worms? Are you getting confused with the problems that some older, 4/3 format Fujifilm sensors had?)

With all equipment, a certain level of competence and expertise is necessary. If someone is having trouble getting good results with equipment at the level of the GFX system, it's not the fault of the equipment.

Very simply put, for image quality, not requiring me to take out a second mortgage for gear, the GFX system is the best I have ever operated. It's not the fastest, doesn't have the range of lenses of others. But it's image quality is simply superb.

With proper computer calibration and using ProRGB, assuming proper exposure, there is usually little to do other than the standard sharpening and cleaning unless someone has an extreme range of light, assuming base ISO.

No.

I found the raw GFX files malleable enough but required far too much effort to obtain something acceptable - my own experience.

Very rarely could obtain similar results vs D850 and x1d.

Before my GFX I had D800E and D850 equipment. Great gear. I did professional work with it all day long. No complaints. No excuses. Money in the bank. Got the work done, slept well at night. In terms of ultimate image quality - no match for my GFX100S and GF lenses.

Rich, I agree, but there's a niggle. I first ran into WYSIWYG as a term at Xerox PARC in the early 70s.

 

[Mr Flip]

But the journey from a raw capture to a satisfactory print (or even on-screen image) involves more user work and input.

If I may respond here. So film especially chromes are what we used to call (wyswyg). So one visualized what they would get with film and assuming correct range of exposures, the results pretty much matched. Yes maybe some touching up of drum scans including cleaning “worms” from the scan. Not usually much adjustment necessary.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. None of it.

Chromes are what we used to call (wysiwyg)?????

The term wysiwyg didn't exist before the personal computer age.

"Chromes" were an accurate representation of the original scene? By whose standards?

Early Kodachrome had purple to black skies with many other colors wildly exaggerated. By K64 skies were cobalt blue and many photographers demanded their "Real" Kodachrome back. Ektachrome had deficiencies in every color. Agfachrome looked nothing like Kodak colors. Velvia exaggerated everything.

No color film ever produced accurate renditions of any original scene.

I've been a drum scanner operator for over 30 years. I've been involved in color reproduction in Offset Lithography and Photography for 50 years. Other than the fact that I don't have the opportunity to reshoot historical images that are on film with digital equipment (because the opportunity is gone), the arrival of digital photography has improved every aspect of color and image reproduction. Other than those historical images, I would never choose film to shoot any important image. And I wouldn't hesitate to assure a client I could nail the requirements for image quality, no matter the criteria, using digital equipment.

We couldn't come close with film technology to the quality we routinely produce now with digital cameras and methods. Not even close. And most of the image quality from the film era is trash (even in the hands of us pros back then) compared to that which even modest digital cameras are now capable of making.

(BTW, "worms with drum scans?" What worms? Are you getting confused with the problems that some older, 4/3 format Fujifilm sensors had?)

With all equipment, a certain level of competence and expertise is necessary. If someone is having trouble getting good results with equipment at the level of the GFX system, it's not the fault of the equipment.

Very simply put, for image quality, not requiring me to take out a second mortgage for gear, the GFX system is the best I have ever operated. It's not the fastest, doesn't have the range of lenses of others. But it's image quality is simply superb.

With proper computer calibration and using ProRGB, assuming proper exposure, there is usually little to do other than the standard sharpening and cleaning unless someone has an extreme range of light, assuming base ISO.

No.

I found the raw GFX files malleable enough but required far too much effort to obtain something acceptable - my own experience.

Very rarely could obtain similar results vs D850 and x1d.

Before my GFX I had D800E and D850 equipment. Great gear. I did professional work with it all day long. No complaints. No excuses. Money in the bank. Got the work done, slept well at night. In terms of ultimate image quality - no match for my GFX100S and GF lenses.

I shot 4x5 Velvia 50,100f and E100 mostly. The others you list are irrelevant. In low light and with proper filters color output was quite reasonable. One became accustomed to see as the film sees, and so my literary license with (wyswyg). one would adjust exposures and filters to compensate. Velvia 50 in low light is not as punchy or saturated but has a luminous quality which makes it ideal for brilliant quiet landscapes.



if you don’t know “worms” than you can’t have cleaned up any 4x5 film scans. This is the result of debris on the film when processed. It may be lint, hair, whatever.



Been shooting digital since 2010, D300,D800 And D850. The neutral profile and Pro RGB give me good results, but it’s not accurate. None of it is.

Now digital printing has come of age and has eclipsed the C and Chromira prints of the past, though some of my large durst lambda prints from 4x5 are still unmatched.

I think most who enjoy the GFX are enamored by the resolution and miss the color scheme. It’s not accurate either and Just not for me. Haven’t tried any non-GF lenses so maybe there is something to consider. The H series Hasselblad gave much better, more accurate color rendition than GFX. That is my experience.



Until one tries the alternatives, one rationalizes their choices as being the best etc. it may be hard for most to see past their emotional commitment to their decisions.



Objectively, I can’t get the GFX colors the way I see the landscape, I pass. Why is that a problem for anyone? There’s no right/wrong, it’s whatever works for you.

I recall a review poster some years ago of a well known European photographer who used a Leica Monochrom and 50 APO m with harsh flash. The poster cursed the photographer for not using the equipment the way “it had been intended”, in his view,, with a long grey tonal range. The photographer became famous and the poster was lost in all the noise.



Say what you will, but if I can’t get what I want out of a sensor, no reason to keep it.

--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)

 

[paulraphael]

I tried GFX50s ii, wanting to replace my medium film cameras such as Pentax 645 and Mamiya 7. The experience and result is not what I expected.

I cannot give out a concrete answer with regard to what is missing. The files are great, the images not so much?! They contain tones of details and rooms to be edited, but they are too "digital" too "boring", I can't really articulate, so I think maybe the lens is the problem? (Only used the kit)

What are your thoughts on this?

As someone who spent decades working with film, and more time in the darkroom than in daylight, and who probably still has hydroquinone running through my veins, I'm going to unpack this idea that there's a "digital look," that it's boring, or that there's some image magic you got from film that you can't get now.

It's literally nonsense.

If you are looking at files right out of the camera (either jpegs or what some arbitrary raw profile hands you) then you're just not doing the work. The people who created those raw processing profiles are not psychic and they can't know your preferences.

But you can use or create different profiles, and you can adjust curves and colors in LR or Photoshop, and make your images look like whatever you like. If you can't get them to look unboring, with these powerful tools, the problem isn't the medium.

 

[Mr Flip]

Jim,

Your attached images are masterful, colorful, just great. But I have a hard time interpreting them in the context of my own experience. Maybe a word or two on each?



I believe this is your response to the creativity point I made.



thanks for sharing them.

 

[JimKasson]

Jim,

Your attached images are masterful, colorful, just great. But I have a hard time interpreting them in the context of my own experience.

That is the point.

Maybe a word or two on each?

Sure. In the PDT morning.

I believe this is your response to the creativity point I made.

It was in response to the assertion that photography is illustration.

thanks for sharing them.

You are most welcome.