Kodak Tri-X 400 Comparison: 35mm vs Medium Format
These photos were shot with a Canon EOS Elan 7 SLR 35mm film camera and a Mamiya RB67 medium format film camera. Developed in my basement and then scanned with an Epson V600. For lenses, I used a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and a Mamiya Sekor 127mm f/3.8 Lens for the RB67.
Black and white photography, when done correctly I find quite beautiful - but by no means is it something I’ve ever excelled at - or spent too much time on. These photo examples below are simply from around my neighborhood that I took and developed for film comparison purposes.
It’s one thing to explain the higher resolution of medium format over 35mm - but being able to see it firsthand helps dramatically - in my opinion.
Like most things, with increased quality comes increased cost. To get 36 exposures with 120 film is going to cost about $25 as opposed to $5.50 for 1 roll of 35mm Kodak Tri-X. For me, this is a fine trade-off as it’s usually a struggle to use up all 36 exposures on a roll of film anyways.
This isn’t to say I’ll never shoot 35mm again - far from it. There’s an abundance of lovely 35mm cameras and lenses - that are affordable, lightweight and convenient to carry around.
Kodak Tri-X 400 35mm
Kodak Tri-X 400 120 film
Kodak Tri-X 400 35mm
Kodak Tri-X 400 120 film
Kodak Tri-X 400 35mm
Kodak Tri-X 400 120 film
Kodak Tri-X 400 35mm
Kodak Tri-X 400 120 film
35mm vs 120
As someone who only recently began shooting 120 film - I’m still blown away by the difference in resolution. This could have easily been titled, “Medium format wins, the end.” But that wouldn’t have been as much fun. And truthfully, photography isn’t just about getting the highest resolution possible.
