{"id":1965,"date":"2015-01-26T03:27:10","date_gmt":"2015-01-26T03:27:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.crunchyspaces.com\/content\/?p=1965"},"modified":"2015-03-05T00:41:00","modified_gmt":"2015-03-05T00:41:00","slug":"its-all-a-bit-different-with-film","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crunchyspaces.com\/content\/its-all-a-bit-different-with-film\/","title":{"rendered":"It’s All a Bit Different with Film"},"content":{"rendered":"

So, because I clearly have nothing better to do (or rather, because I am trying to avoid doing all those things I should be doing), I decided to try another extremely unscientific lens tests. Or, more accurately, I took a few casual shots to finish off the last few shots on a roll of Kodak Portra film.<\/p>\n

Previously, I had run some informal and very subjective tests using a couple of Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm lenses on a digital camera<\/a>. In that exercise, I took some photographs with Zuiko 50mm lenses attached to a Sony A7 full frame camera. The results were variable. But I wondered to what degree the fact that the lenses were on a digital camera, affected the final images.<\/p>\n

So, a couple of weeks later, I ran a similar exercise with the same lenses, using what they were designed for \u2013 35mm film. Using an Olympus OM1n camera, mounted on a slightly shaky tripod, and taken at \u01921.4, here is what I got.\u00a0 From what I can see, the apparent differences between the two lenses are less pronounced than the digital exercise. All images have had an auto-curve applied in Photoshop.<\/p>\n

\"Photo