# Choosing between Medium Format and 35mm digital platforms **URL:** \ **Category:** Digital Camera Scanning\ **Created:** [February 13, 2025, 4:56pm UTC](https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/choosing-between-medium-format-and-35mm-digital-platforms/8892 "2025-02-13T16:56:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![Digitizer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@Digitizer](https://forums.negativelabpro.com/u/Digitizer)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 12:25pm UTC](https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/choosing-between-medium-format-and-35mm-digital-platforms/8892/3 "2025-02-14T12:25:46Z")
I agree with what @Mark_Segal wrote above, investing in medium format cameras just for scanning might probably be out of proportions. One thing though: Depending on what you scan, the wasted number of pixels can differ quite a lot. Most of my (old) analog material is in 645 format with an aspect ratio of 4:3. Here, a GFX would increase the number of usable pixels considerably. Scanning 135 format is best done with a 3:2 proportioned sensor. I’ve commented this in several threads, one of them is this in post: [Do I need to change my lens/camera to scan medium format? - #8 by Digitizer](https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/do-i-need-to-change-my-lens-camera-to-scan-medium-format/4873/8) Paper prints have a range of about 7 bits, whether you start with 14 or 16 bits seems negligible - unless you do really crazy things or have to handle heavily underexposed material. All in all (and apart from the aspect ratio considerations) we’re in that part of 80:20 where cost/benefit is not budget friendly. --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/choosing-between-medium-format-and-35mm-digital-platforms/8892)._