I found this quote: "go with 35mm film. You get a larger negative -- 35mm vs. 24mm"

Is it right?
I found specs for 135 format negatives as 36x24mm and APS as 30x17mm
I have a suspicion that quote is referring to the film width, not the exposed image size !

If that's right, the difference beween the two formats is only 6 mm for a horizontal subject.
APS is 83% of the 135 size in that dimension, not the overstated 68%
Not so much over-claim in the vertical 70% instead of 68%

I'd go with 35mm for all the other reasons :D

Cropping room, body quality, lens quality, range of film choice, controllability of the camera - yeah Python's "what did the Romans do for us?" comes to mind :rolleyes:

Which is why I'm going to sell my two APS SLRs

I found this quote: "go with 35mm film. You get a larger negative -- 35mm vs. 24mm"

Is it right?
I found specs for 135 format negatives as 36x24mm and APS as 30x17mm
I have a suspicion that quote is referring to the film width, not the exposed image size

The surface area of 35mm is 864 and APS is 510. That makes APS only 59% of 35mm. That difference with film is easily visible.

Exactly - bigger negatives are a good thing. Still, 35mm is pretty small so I personally wouldn't want anything smaller than that. I don't see as many labs offer (or at least advertise) APS processing, and it costs more per frame if I remember right.

Nothing wrong with 35mm, and films out there are excellent. Depending on the shot, you might be happy with a 16x20 - which would probably look better than an APS neg printed to 11x14.