APS vs 35MM

Printable View

  • 05-28-2004, 02:44 PM
    SmartWombat
    APS vs 35MM
    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
  • 05-28-2004, 07:10 PM
    Michael Fanelli
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SmartWombat
    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.
  • 05-29-2004, 12:34 PM
    another view
    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.