35mm or APS??
Jun 20 '01
The Bottom Line 35mm is less expensive and higher quality and has more flexibility.
APS is easier to handle, but more expensive and print quality suffers.
Quick Summary
In my opinion, APS is not worth the extra cost over 35mm. In the next few paragraphs, I'll go into the detail of why I believe this to be so.
A little Background
A few years ago, Kodak and a few other manufacturers got together and decided to try to invent a new film format so that they could increase revenue by having a new product that people would love to use. It's taken quite a few years for APS to catch on, but it has taken hold.
They decided to make the format using a smaller negative than existing 35mm. APS is 24mm. That's about 30% smaller, which means 30% less detail.
Comparison of quality between formats
I recently forgot to bring my 35mm camera on a trip to a wedding. We ran to the local drug store and bough a disposable camera. They didn't have 35mm ones, so I grabbed an APS camera with flash. It was loaded with Kodak Gold 400. When I got back from the trip, I ran the camera and film to my "higher-end" 1-hour processing place. I got my prints back that same day. I was quite disappointed in the prints that the photo-finisher made. Since I use this photo-finisher exclusively, I know their quality.
The APS prints were grainy. Very noticeable with a 4x6 print. To me, graininess is the first thing that I immediately notice, and that was enough to turn me off of this film format. We’ve bought an occasional 35mm disposable camera and have gotten much tighter grain.
My prints from Fuji Superia 400 (35mm) have almost undetectable grain.
APS advantages / 35mm disadvantages
On modern 35mm cameras, the film is pretty easy to load. On my particular camera, I just pop the film in, stretch it across to the red dot, and close the back. On APS film is very, very easy to load. One just inserts the roll into the camera and that's it.
APS film have seemingly 3 formats to choose from: standard 4x6, wider 4x7, and panaramic. All result in the same negative size, though. For the panoramic shots, they just print the middle third of the negative. You can get panoramic shots from 35mm as well. You just need to ask for it from your local photo finisher.
APS mid-roll reload capabilities (on some cameras). If you want to switch from color to B+W and back to color, you can do so if your APS camera supports it. On 35mm, this is more difficult to accomplish. Here’s what I do: do the mid-roll rewind, leaving the leader out, mark on the canister which frame I’m currently on, load and shoot a whole different roll of film, put the first roll back in, and advance to the frame last shot + 1.
Since the APS film format is smaller, the cameras are smaller. With 35mm, you probably need a camera bag, while APS can fit into your shirt pocket.
APS DISadvantages / 35mm advantages
APS Negative size is 30% smaller, resulting in less detail and more grain.
APS Film is more expensive. The current cost for a roll of APS 400 – 25 exposure is about $3.50 while the equivalent 35mm (400 – 24 exposure) runs about $2.99.
APS Cameras are more expensive. The prices vary greatly, but similarly featured 35mm point and shoot cost less than the APS version. For instance, the Canon Elph 370z (zoom 23-69 which is equivalent to 29-86mm in 35mm) runs $215, while a Canon Sure Shot 105 zoom (38-105) runs $129 while having greater zooming range!
Development is more expensive. My local photo finisher charges $10.35 for 24 exposures of 35mm and $12.73 for 25 exposures of APS.
35mm offers more flexibility with SLR’s and interchangeable lenses. APS is still just mostly point and shoot (with two exceptions Minolta Vectis and Nikon Pronea).
Conclusion
If you want small and easy to use, APS may be your answer. If enjoy saving money, and want more flexibility and quality, 35mm may be your answer: It is my answer.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
skhong
|
 - Top 1000 |
|
Location: Minnesota, US
Reviews written: 47
Trusted by: 7 members
About Me:
My short bio: woodworking, photography, trucks...
|
|
|
© 1999-2008 Shopping.com, Inc.