Medium Format Film vs Digital Comparison

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


A little comparison between the GFX50r and the RZ67
Thank you to Squarespace for sponsoring this video, if you’d like to try out their service you can do so here:


Support us on Patreon:

Video recorded on Sony A6500

Music by Chris Punsalan:

Social Media:



Broderick Engelhard says:

In all honest the film shots stand out so much more then the digital. Digital is too clean, the highlights on skin tone are unflattering. Film is the way

apache313 says:

I would like to see that RZ lens adapted to the Fuji

Nelson Club says:

If you turn your backdrop away from the window slightly you will get a darker background and avoid that nasty specular highlights/reflectance

N Mencía says:

Anyone knows which Salomon model is George wearing? 4:05

Matt Mills says:

I'd say the big difference in the images that I'm seeing is the microcontrast, or edge contrast or local contrast, I've heard it called all three. Comes down the coatings in the lens as much as anything. Back when I shot a lot of film, there were also developers (black and white only) that could be used to increase this a bit, due to reduced Sodium Sulfite content (mostly). Now I just shoot digital. Modern lenses.

Raychristofer says:

Great comparison thanks for this. One thing I can say is the colors on the digital are much more accurate and pleasing. That's one reason I don't shoot too much color film anymore the colors are sometimes hit and miss but I do find I prefer the texture and grain of black and white film than my digital bw.

AmbiencePT says:

Haven't shot digital in ages ! Don't miss it one bit.
Thankfully film pays all the bills now.

William Windham says:

although film gives that specific "imperfect look" it kinda seems irrelevent in the sense once you start learning how to edit photos and buy software you can do it cheaper then buying 20-40 doller film packs everytime you run out

** says:

Digital blew away film years ago. Looking at large prints 40×60 inches the sharpness and detail isn’t even comparable with an 8×10 camera. Digital blows it away.

Arrested Images Photography and Design says:

the film looked too soft for most of your shots – eyes completely out of focus on one shot……while the digital was sharper with punchier color and contrast – guess it boils down to preference////

Rene Calvillo says:

I loved the video! What color backdrop is this?

黑七白德 says:

This channel needs some systematic photography education. The points u prompting are so amateur and Instagram.

John Thatcher says:

Shooting beauty work with these two cameras would be more worth it in my opinion. Shooting at f/22 with multiple flashes…youd really be able to see the difference. depth of field really obscures the results on these kinds of things

mikohonkala says:

Can you do same compairing but use same film stocks that you use film simulations in fuji digital? That would be very interesting! Good video.

Dina Galal says:


Elena Ferreras says:

Hey George! Is Negative Feedback ever going to do a photography walk or meet up or something like that in London?

TheKiwiJobes says:

Recommend looking at capture one pro and mastin labs. They have amazing portra/fuji emulation packs.

Eric Sonson says:

Two things:
1. I think the GFX's sensor is more comparable to a 6×4.5 film camera.
2. What if you put a black pro mist filter 1/4 or 1/2 on the GFX to soften it up?

Oli Kent says:

What are your opinions on Cian Moore?

Ian Rosie says:

You hit the nail on the head in identifying the differing sensor sizes as making the difference. "There is no replacement for displacement", as they say in the car world, but perhaps it can also be used in the photography world. In defence of Fujifilm, I recall clearly one of the launches of a GFX, perhaps it was the GFX50r, where one of the top men at Fuji was asked what he called he sensor size. He said he preferred to call it 'Super35', rather than medium format. It's there on youtube, but either the marketing men, or salesmen, or YouTube jocks (no offence intended), decided it would be an easier sell as 'medium format' and so have fronted it out ever since. I'm guessing the guy who called it 'Super35' has been ushered back to the boardroom, never to see the light of day again, or at least not a press launch. I'm guessing once real medium format size digital (they are actually analogue, but that's another story) sensors become commercially viable, the current sensor used by Fuji and others will be seen as some kind of stepping stone. That was a good comparison, thanks.

Expatriate Chronicles says:

What software did you use for the Raw conversion? I agree with the lens being the critical issue. I use a Sony A7 Mk2 with old C/Y Zeiss lenses, and the look is almost exactly the same as what I get with the same lenses and a Contax film camera.

Expatriate Chronicles says:

Some will say those portraits are weird. I say they're brilliant! Good work!

Skip Rope says:

Gay photography.

Felix Olsson says:

We dont trust you with the know-how of such a precious Fuji-system, George!

Simon Graham says:

5k for the digital and a few hundred bucks for the film cam. Probs got to side with the mamiya!

Trolleyfox says:

You need to do a podcast, I could listen to your voice all day.

Inevitable Crafts Lab says:

not even close to the look of 6×7 and film.

D M says:

If you can, test it again with a Mitakon Speedmaster 65mm or 85mm.
The rendering should be what you are missing.

James Knaack says:

This was tremendously helpful! Thanks so much for taking time to do a direct side-by-side comparison.

Write a comment


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