>>4383329

Same for me with the Olympus om1 and the f100

You can even see it on the Flickr f100 group, it takes the exact lenses modern dslr did and looks halfway between film and digital. It also is exactly like using a dslr shooting with it.

Om1 photos have a totally different feel with its lenses from the 1970s

>>4383331
It's intereesting just how much influence a lens has. I had been thinking until now that it does have an impact, but maybe ~15-20% was the lens and the rest was the sensor/film, but maybe it is really more like 40-50% lens, or maybe film is more sensitive to lens characteristics than digital? I'm not sure, but the effect was immediately noticeable and it was on film stocks I was very familiar with.

>>4383334
It's easy to forget/take for granted that our eyes are lenses. Photons flying through the air need to be focused into an image, in a sense this is where the photo is made. It's not a simple matter and there are many ways to make it happen with different effects.

that's wild, I had the exact opposite experience. I shot konica SLRs from age 15-19 and then got an F100 and a 50 1.4 AF-D and never looked back. Loved my F100, that beautiful matrix metering and autofocus helped me get so many more keepers out of a roll of film.

Of course, now I mostly shoot digital - I no longer have the F100 but I do still have all the Konica gear. Sentimental value, as it was my fathers. I miss my F100 though.

>>4383358
I never said the f100 was bad. It's a great. I said I realized the thing I enjoyed was my lenses, which made the f100 useless, not bad.

>>4383329

what is this it, the proof tier prints, negatives or scanned files, good chance is that in history of film they got to point where images were computer rendered from film data