Large Format Is Still Completely Unrivaled: Canon 5DSR Versus 4x5 Large Format Film - Part 1

And so Large Format will remain the undisputed KING!

thank you

I am dreaming of 2 sensors
1. For Hasselblad a r55mm to 55mm, which is 6x6 in real
2- a sensor fully covering 4x5 and 13x18 inch.
But I think, such a sensor has the same price as a private jet

Which digital camera with lens can I buy in 2023 that will produce the same results as the large format film ? or closest option in your opnion. Thank you Osman. Great Vid

hi! what is the large format model?

If you are going to tell me 4x5 is better than 50 megapixels I'm calling BS

I've shot both film and digital and love both, and digital does sharpness way better than film, but what digital lacks is how sharpness rolls off into bokeh. If you would take a picture at F1.8 of a flat surface, road, wall or whatever you'll see, in digital, a very sharp horizontal or vertical surface about 5% of the total picture, around that 2x 5% fuzziness on both sides and then the bokeh. With film you'll never get this; what's in focus is in focus enough (but not as sharp as digital) but you'll get none of these "bands" of sharpness in your photo's. It's all buttery smooth. So I like both for different reasons.

Nice to see somebody exercising an old beast like that. It is a workout just to carry around. Shades of Ansel Adams. At least you aren't lugging around an 8x10 view camera rig.

Your examples really show the benefit of large format. The greatest difference I see is the shadows are so much richer and the tonal palette greater with the 4x5. The digital images look washed out by comparison.

I don't shoot a lot of film these days but still have a Speed Graphic 4x5. I only use B&W with it. I really like the ability to do some perspective corrections. For something more pocket friendly, I have a Zeiss Super Ikonta C 6x9cm with f2.8 lens. Mostly shoot transparencies with that. Velvia or Lumier. For B&W, I have a Moskva V (Zeiss copy) that I shoot with Tri-X or similar. Slow and fiddly but great images.

I agree the 4x5 image destroys the digital camera, night and day difference, that 4x5 shot has mood and film magic.

The best I can do on (affordable) digital MF is to setup a Metabones speed booster, and an Isco Cinelux 105mm 1.6 projector lens.
The Fuji MF sensor is 44x33mm. With a x0.71 speed booster gets the FOV of 62x46.5mm. That's larger than film 645 which is actually 56x41.5mm (and 6x6 actually is 56x56mm). With this setup the 105mm 1.6 is equivalent to a 58.9mm f0.897 on FF sensor (Nikon 58mm 0.95?).
Now get a 4x5 camera and attach to the back a slider and the above setup as a digital back. It won't get you to 100x125mm of 4x5, but sliding the "digital back" and taking just 2 frames will be equivalent to a 93x62mm FOV. Of course the person in front will have to stay still until the 2 frames are taken, but that's still faster than shooting 4x5 film.
With some nice editing you can get BW tonality similar with a large format camera (given you are using the GFX 100s and not 50s/r)
105mm x 0.71 x 0.79 = 58.9mm
f1.6 x 0.71 x 0.79 = f0.897
What do you think?

I love my 4x5 ! Film lives.

Sharp for portraits is over rated, can't see digital small format (including the current crop of so called medium format little digital cameras) is ever going to out perform a large format camera.

8 x10 is another world !

All I'm hearing is that the large format look is thin DoF, since the way things are rendered and blurred are directly related to the lens design.

Compare 4x5 to a Fuji gfx 100.

Ah, megapixels. When I was new in large format film (2003), I had a 1998 vintage scanner and with that, I could get 100 megapixels from a 4x5 negative. Now, I have a modern scanner (Epson V850Pro), and I can get that pixel count from a 6x9 cm roll film negative. By my count, I should be able to pull 4800*4800*4*5 = about 460 megapixels out of 4x5 (in practice, a little less, because the scanner's film carrier masks some -- more loss than the rebates due to the film holder edge rails). In practice, I don't bother to scan BIG negatives at maximum resolution -- I simply don't have any use for files that run 27 GB uncompressed (16 bits per channel for three channels at 450 megapixels).

On the other hand, I do have a use for negatives that are only at 2x enlargement on 8x10 prints.

I just googled what approximately the megapixel equivalent for a 4x5 inch film is. 298.7 million pixels! And it's a whopping 1,200 million pixels for 8x10 inch film. That's crazy!

also one question, as you are comparing depth of field between these options, with the LF camera, one is assuming all movements are zeroed out?, as this (esp. the front standard) controls the depth of field irrespective of apature selected aka selective focus affect, or the sceimflug principle.

The large format camera definetely blew away the DSLR + Sigma combo. Perhaps, it wasn't the best comparaison. I think the Canon 85L would have shown a more similar style to the large format DOF.

The Brenizer Method can accomplish the nice shallow depth of field on a full frame camera. I would say it may even have a blurrier background if it is what you are trying to accomplish.

A few years ago I was given a camera for my birthday and was then asked by a friend of mine who was having his autobiography published wanted me to do the photography for the book cover,
I told the art director that I only had a film camera and not a digital one and when I told him what camera I had he said forget digital as I can scan the transparencies to a much better resolution.
I absolutely love the shallow depth of field the 100mm f2.4 carl zeiss lens produced with the Bronica S2A

Speaker not humerous, the only thing going for this video is the pleasant model

Large format simply rocks!

I get images like that with my full frame dslr canon ef 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2. You don’t need large format

Large format film is magazine quality, full frame digital is Instagram quality. Lol

The closest thing in digital would be a Nikkor 58mm f0.95 on a Z7II. It delivers a very similar look.

And this is coming from someone shooting P1, 4x5 and 8x10.

An incredible and extremely rare video
In my opinion, although digital controls almost the entire photography industry
But it is still miles away from the film
The magic seen in analog images can never be simulated digitally
No sensor can replicate the dream images produced in the Large Format film
Thank you for this great video

film over digital all week long

What about something like a hasselblad

great vid! thanks

who's that hero who was able to focus pin-sharp on her eyes in 4x5 at f/2.8 ?

Dreamy

This was hard to watch. Very all over the place. Good info but bad execution

You'd have to use a 300mm f2.8 on the Canon to get a more similar depth-of-field effect.

Love my Mamiya Press Super 23 with the 6x9 back and the 100mm F2.8 lens.

It wasnt touched upon in this video but the biggest draw for me towards LF is that the bellows allows for rise/fall and tilting to create images that are not possible in any other way.

Shooting digital only works for me when I need rapid fire photography and wireless ability with my laptop... But I don't really get an emotional attachment to the work... Quality comes from quantity and hope for the best.

On the other hand, shooting even my 110 film camera gives me joy. Film is one shot, and that's it. As I go to my medium format cameras, especially my Kodak medalists, I'm reminded just how meticulous I have to be to get a shot that's sharp, pleasing, and tells a story or catches a moment. I get 24 shots to 110 but only 8 in 6x9. I have to make them count, and slow myself down to get those counted moments.

One day, I'll get to 4x5. I have a grill format comparison coming soon on my channel... It should be up in a few hours.

I once knew a girl that could be considered "large format". And she was indeed completely unrivaled in the dark room.

amaaazziinnggg

shame to waste the potential of 4x5 on polaroid.

I'd be interested to see the comparison between the 5dsr and the Hasselblad 907x.

Isn't that a contradiction? At around the 4 min mark, you said that for equal distance, a bigger sensor yields a shallower depth of field. At the beginning of the video, you set out to disprove this... unless I am mistaken

How could a sensor a fraction of the size be sharper?

The results are mediocre at best. Your obsession with shallow depth of field - which is a one trick pony and not particularly important for 90% of work product - eliminates your objectivity regarding the other ares of execution in these images- regardless of format. Keep at it.

Just wondering what camera did you shot the video with? thanks

Damn... Are we ever gonna be able to get photos like that on portable digital cameras? :O