Film vs. Digital: Comparing Medium Format, 35mm, and Mirrorless | Photography Tips

Thanks! Share it with your friends!

Close — For a more on comparing film versus digital and other photography tips, head on over to the blog!

Facebook –
Twitter –
Instagram –
Shutterstock Blog –


Shutterstock Tutorials says:

Just to reiterate, I'm not saying one way of shooting is better than the other. I just took the cameras and scanner I had and compared the different outcomes. Please don't kill me. – Logan

Barton Bronstein says:

Make a video on how to simulate the medium format film look with digital

Abe Ortega says:

It's like comparing Oranges to Apples to Peaches. The lenses are the big factor here. I thoroughly enjoyed your video. Cheers!

Richard Golonka says:

portra 400 is too expensive and if you are just starting out in film it will make you not want to continue. Seriously, just shoot superia or ultramax. But I understand the need to use good film for this comparison. Use a warming filter if you need to with cheaper films to play with the tone. Portra is great but its priced for professional photographers. Also, for long exposures you should have used neopan arcos 100 or provia 100f slide film as they require almost no reciprocity failure calculation compared to other films. Both have excellent resolution, enough to compete with digital. Color negative film is great, but the best quality you will get with a film camera is with slide film and that is a better comparison to the sony. Color negative film cannot be compared to digital as they are almost completely different medium in the way they interpret color, with the exception of ektar. Ektar was kodaks response to digital and is likely the best cneg film ever made and it does in fact look like digital, but still with the film look. That would have been a better choice than portra. If you wanted a better comparison to color negative film you should have compared to the canon 5d classic as that is about the MP equivalent of most cneg films with most scanners.

Kevin Xu says:

This is the best comparison video among the full fame digital, 135mm and 120mm films. High quality! Support!

Milan Roemer says:

What shooting settings did you compare. a 400 film for 35mm is lesser detail focussed than a 120 roll film, a similar 400 roll would have done it. Did you fix the iso on the Sony as well? Comparing film and digital is a sensitive thing, at least as mus equality in the settings should be created. But furthermore, film on quality is inferior-not because film itself is, beating a medium format film needs more than a FF digital camera, but because of the whole process: shooting and then scanning. So turn from analog to digital means quality loss. No photo lab will develop old style.

shaolin95 says:

There is simply no discussion here, digital is superior and anyone that says otherwise is just being silly and blinded by nostalgia. I get it, people like retro stuff like retro gaming, but that does not make it better and in this case there is no competition.
Time moves improves. Some people are able to deal with that and evolve and others are stubborn and get stuck in the past unable to "see" reality.

Romek K says:

Just a few months ago I got me a new film camera. It's not high-end hardware but I intentionally got the very Praktica MTL-5B. I did not give up on my Canon and I use them both. The fun I have when playing with the film camera is incomparable to the digital one. Although the quality of the pictures is way lower and you can never tell what a picture looks like until it is developed the anxiety is what I like the most about it. And when you realize that you managed to get that perfect exposure and focus it is soooo rewarding.
I am thinking of buying a more sophisticated film camera since they are now dirt cheap. We will see what the future brings.

Tomislav Miletić says:

Dude, don't be mad at me, but I guess you should refine your manual focussing skills, course they are lacking, what's particularly visible in indoor wide open portrait shots, or your cameras are just a little bit broken (say the ground glass could be misplaced), what's on the other hand quite normal given their age. Of course, you could get autofocus film cameras, both 35mm and MF, but those are agin quite old and could missfocuss…
Moreover, comparing Sony @3 with Portra? Come on… Fair comparison would be if you compare @3 with some bad ass tiny grain film, but in this day & age the only options would be Kodak Ektar with his funny colours or Fuji Velvia, which is prone to high contrast, bluish colours and it's quite unforgiving regarding exposure, damn…
All said in my opinion only of course.

abetterangle says:

I think that the degraded sots from your 35mm camera are not due to your film but from your lens on that camera.

Dada Sasa says:

Well done, tks

Rochdi Tidjani says:

You omitted to mention which ISO you shot at with the Sony S camera. Portra 400 is a relatively high ISO for film. This is visible in the higher contrast Portra was, next to the medium format film or its digital counterpart. Using an ISO 100 in 35mm would have led to a better comparison. I enjoyed the video though

osx holunman says:

Film has the dynamic range, digital has the sharpness

Red Shutter Photography says:

For work I use digital, far cheapher and faster for the customer, for pleasure shoot film, far more rewarding and enjoyable and later this year when I give up my photography work, I will then only ever shoot film, film is far better to me, always will be.

Djuy Doiu says:

nice video
that low contrast might be checked with diffrent lenses special old lenses got a problem with the contrast
a lot of the quality comes from the lens

R Nuttmann says:

After spending a LOT of time trying to decide which is better film or digital I think the answer is neither. If you have both types of cameras just shoot the one you think best fits the subject and how you feel that day. I do like some of the new features you get with some digital, like eye auto focus. But then I like the simplicity of some film cameras. I do much prefer black and white film shooting to digital black and white.

Scarlet Pimpernel says:

Then again if you have been shooting with film for 35 years use the same old Nikon F501 AF the same lenses and I have a Nikon D 300 of which I stopped using a few months ago because I get better images from film also I only use Kodak Colour Plus 200 and only have center weighted metering plus one AF point I aways find that its not the equipment but my particular way I shoot film I realised that digital never really did anything for me

John Weber says:

I think the film speed for 35mm was a too high. also tungsten rated 3200k color is better suited for night time. I have about 15 years in post production motion picture experience. I prefer the 120 format in general. keep up the good work.

John Flinn says:

You lose contrast when you don't have a hood. Portra does not have the same pop as slide film like Fujichrome 100F.

Fabian A says:

The epson v600 is a good prosumer scanner hence the results you obtained…but…if you would have used a drum scanner, or a high megapixel camera on a copy stand with a proper macro, the results would have been EXTREMELY DIFFERENT. Medium format film, properly scanned to a higher standard, blows, I repeat, BLOWS AWAY the 35mm Sony digital camera.

William Murray says:

Just so we're clear, you used the same lens at the same aperture for all three cameras, right?

And you used high end after market film holders with anti-Newton Ring glass, right?

If you are going to put out these sort of things, where you are presenting yourself as a subject matter expert, you have to absolutely nail it.

David Grano-De-Oro says:

Yah this was a waist of time both for me to watch and for you to produce given your intent. Next time try to think things through more and understand the actual chemistry, physics, and digital conversation algorithms of each cameras fundamental systems before presuming to compare results. Then also dont make the mistake of not using the same lens and exposure settings. Last to truly sho the differences between each…under expose and over expose push and pull highlights and shadows, set perfect white balance, test in a studio, test on cloudless days or overcast for consistent outdoor lighting and color.

Frankly I would have given you much more of a pass if you first declared you are not a pro nd dong know what your doing but was just curious and are open to suggestions to further refine the test and comparison. Wish I could unwatch this and just hold out for a better version 5 of your comparison or simply watch it from a better YouTube channel like Dustin Abbott, Phlern, Toney and Chelsea Northrop, etc. Sory to be so harsh but I'd suggest removing this embarrassment before it gets to many views.

Javier Caparroso says:

Thank you for the effort but I am sorry to say that to my view the video is far from instructive. Shooting specs should have been the same in all cameras, and I do not think this is true. Furthermore, and really important, the scanned images are poor, not only in definition but also in colour, with evident colour shifts. Epson Scan is ok for b&w film, but it is not for colour film.

Jakub Zięciak says:

how about using ektar 100 in film cameras?

der Ryk1 says:

Well in Light Room you can bring out a ton of detail in those "blown out" sections just by adjusting the high lights and whites. Digital has an incredible dynamic range much more than film. Sorry Film Hipsters and Digital Neanderthals, film is cool and all but I have been there and done that with film shooting and developing my own. I'm never going back to using it full time, perhaps as a novelty I'll even give daguerreotype photography a try one day just for kicks.

WIWA wiratama says:

Try another one, k1000 vs a7 with "the same lens" on both camera bodies. Adapt the k1000 lens to the a7 and then compare it. I think it would be intresting.

Ian Russell-McCoy says:

Why even say not to destroy you in the comment section?

Write a comment


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.