Tag: photography comparison

Classic Chrome Meets Portra 160: Evaluating the Pentax ME Super and Fujifilm X100F

Posted on Posted in Black and White Photography, Film Photography, Landscape Photography, Northumberland, Travel photography, United KingdomTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments

Let’s talk about two of my favorite cameras—the Fujifilm X100F and the Pentax ME Super. While these cameras belong to entirely different eras of photography, they share a surprising similarity in size and portability. I’ve used both extensively, and today, I want to compare their unique qualities without turning it into a clichéd “film vs. digital” debate.

Photography enthusiasts often find themselves in one of two camps: those who champion the convenience and immediacy of digital, and the purists who swear by the timelessness of film. But if you’ve followed this blog for a while, you’ll know I don’t see things that way. Instead, I value what each format brings to the table, and more importantly, how both contribute to the experience of photography.

A Tale of Two Cameras

For me, photography is more than just the final image—it’s about the journey of capturing it. Any Lomography fan will agree: the process is as important as the outcome. When I shoot with the Fujifilm X100F, I appreciate the immediate feedback of seeing the image on the screen and knowing right away what I’ve captured. But with the Pentax ME Super, it’s a different experience. I have a rough idea of what the film will deliver, but the magic isn’t fully revealed until the film is developed. That anticipation is part of the charm.

For this comparison, I’ve chosen photographs from Northumberland. Its moody, windswept landscapes—places like Alnmouth and the Northumbrian moors—present the perfect canvas for both film and digital. The X100F’s Classic Chrome simulation delivers a retro, muted look, while Kodak Portra 160 film, shot through the Pentax, brings warmth and richness to the tones.

The Fujifilm X100F

The X100F has often been called a bridge between the analogue and digital worlds, and I tend to agree. It’s packed with modern features like autofocus and an electronic viewfinder (EVF), but the controls are refreshingly tactile, with dedicated dials for aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. For anyone with a background in film photography, this setup feels familiar and intuitive.

What sets the X100F apart for me, though, is its Classic Chrome film simulation. It offers a subdued color palette that echoes old film stock, perfect when I want a slightly desaturated, vintage aesthetic. Unlike some over-the-top digital filters, Classic Chrome feels organic and subtle—bringing out details in the shadows without overwhelming the shot with contrast.

The X100F Photos

The Pentax ME Super

On the other hand, the Pentax ME Super is all about slowing down. There’s no EVF, no digital screen, and definitely no autofocus. Instead, you rely on a split-prism focusing system and aperture-priority mode. It forces you to be deliberate with each shot, a process that I find incredibly satisfying.

You’ll often hear film photographers talk about being more “in the moment” when shooting on film, and that’s exactly how I feel with the ME Super. The process of carefully composing each shot, setting exposure manually, and waiting for the film to be developed encourages patience and thoughtfulness.

For this outing, I paired the ME Super with Kodak Portra 160, a film that’s become known for its natural skin tones and soft, warm colors. Paired with the 50mm f/1.7 lens, this combination creates images with that unmistakable film character—shallow depth of field, soft highlights, and rich colors.

Lenses and Sensor Size

One of the most noticeable technical differences between these two cameras is their lenses and sensor sizes. The X100F features a 35mm equivalent f/2.0 fixed lens, while I usually use the 50mm f/1.7 on the Pentax. On the sensor front, the X100F has an APS-C crop sensor, giving it a narrower field of view compared to the full-frame 35mm film in the Pentax.

This technical difference goes beyond field of view. The Pentax ME Super has fixed ISO based on the film I choose, so I need to plan ahead for the lighting conditions I’ll be working in. In contrast, the X100F allows me to adjust ISO on the fly, providing flexibility in rapidly changing environments. This is something digital photographers have come to rely on, and it’s undeniably convenient when shooting in variable light.

The Pentax ME Super photos

Comparing the Images

Now, the big question: which is better, the Pentax ME Super or the Fujifilm X100F? Honestly, neither. They’re different tools for different purposes. Whether you’re drawn to the organic feel of film or the convenience of digital, both formats offer something unique. And that’s the beauty of photography—there’s no one-size-fits-all approach.

The slideshow features shots from both cameras. As you look at them, you might favour one look over the other. The film shots have a warmth and texture that digital sometimes struggles to replicate, while the digital photos are sharp, detailed, and offer instant gratification. But ultimately, this comes down to personal preference, not a matter of one being objectively better.

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, a camera is just a tool for capturing a scene in a particular way. As long as the final image is pleasing to the eye, I’d say the job is done. So don’t limit yourself to just one format—if you haven’t tried shooting film, give it a go. If you’re a film photographer who’s hesitant to try digital, maybe the X100F will ease that transition with its analogue-like feel.

More than anything, I encourage you to enjoy the process, whether it’s with film, digital, or both. Get out there, take your time, and remember that photography isn’t just about the images you capture—it’s about the experience.

If you’d like to go deeper on the Pentax ME Super specifically, I’ve written a full dedicated review: Why the Pentax ME Super Is the Perfect First Film Camera (Even in 2026).

Post Scriptum: if you’re new here, this blog is mostly camera reviews, photography tips, and whatever I got up to that week with a camera in hand. Have a poke around, and if you’ve got questions about either of these two, drop them in the comments.

Choosing the Right Film Format: 35mm vs. Medium Format Photography

Posted on Posted in Film Photography, Photography TutorialsTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

I shoot both 35mm and medium format, and people occasionally ask which one they should pick up first. Here’s my honest answer, with the two side by side so you can see the difference for yourself rather than take my word for it.

35mm is the format everyone starts with. It’s the standard: easy to find, easy to get developed, and every camera shop from here to Nantes has a fridge full of it. Medium format is a different animal entirely, and the differences show up the moment you hold a negative up to the light.

The most obvious one is detail. A medium format negative is so much bigger than a 35mm frame that it just holds more information, more texture, finer lines, without trying. If you want a print that rewards someone standing close up and looking hard, medium format gets you there faster.

Then there’s the shape of the thing. 35mm gives you the familiar 3:2 rectangle. A lot of medium format cameras, mine included, shoot square, 6×6. That square forces you to compose differently. You can’t lean on the usual rectangle instincts. Vivian Maier shot almost entirely on a TLR in square format, and it’s part of why her street work looks the way it does, different balance, different eye. I won’t pretend I’ve got her eye, but the square format does make you slow down and actually think about balance instead of defaulting to the rule of thirds out of habit.

Depth of field is shallower on medium format too, which is handy for portraits or any shot where you want the subject to properly separate from the background. Get the composition right and your subject sits there against a soft blur that 35mm makes you work much harder for.

Size and weight go the other way. 35mm cameras are small and light, which matters when you’re moving fast on the street. Medium format bodies, mine especially (see my Mamiya C220 review for exactly how much of a beast it is), are bulkier and heavier, and that changes how you shoot. Less grab-and-go, more plan-and-wait.

Cost is the other real difference. 35mm and its development are cheap. Medium format isn’t. Shoot 6×6 and you get twelve frames a roll, not thirty-six, which changes your relationship with the shutter button fast. If you get twitchy shooting 35mm, wait until you’re down to twelve frames and every one of them costs real money. That said, no shot is wasted, even the ones that don’t work teach you something, and if you’re after gallery prints or paid work, the extra cost of medium format tends to pay for itself in the result.

35mm also just moves faster in daily use, candid shots, quick reactions, film that’s easy to get processed anywhere. Medium format asks you to slow down and actually think through a shot before you take it, which some days I love and some days I find a proper faff.

Below is the same rough scene shot on both: a 35mm frame on the Pentax ME Super with a 50mm lens, and a medium format frame on the Mamiya C220 with an 80mm lens (roughly equivalent field of view). Have a look and decide for yourself which you prefer.

The 35mm frame, shot on the Pentax ME Super. The standard format, the one everyone knows.

The square 6×6 frame, shot on the Mamiya C220. Judge the difference for yourself.

Same rough field of view, 50mm on the 35mm body, 80mm on the medium format body, and you can already see how differently the square frame reads next to the rectangle.

If you want to go further into medium format, a Mamiya C220 review is coming, where I’ll go into what it’s actually like carrying that thing around Nantes for a day.

There’s no correct answer here, whatever the camera forums tell you. I use both, for different reasons, on different days. 35mm when I want to move fast and not think too hard. Medium format when I’ve got the time to plan a shot properly and want the negative to reward it. Pick whichever one matches how you actually like to work, not which one sounds more serious.