After I posted the medium format scans above I realized that I also had a 35mm picture of approximately the same view.
And here is a closer look at the same negative.
It is not a true one to one comparison. Besides the different negative size there are different lighting conditions, different effective focal length, different film stock (but with the same developer) and a different scanning technique (a single X-T20 shot for the 35mm negative). But I think the difference here between medium format and 35mm is clear.
The medium format picture was taken with FP4 Plus film and developed with Rodinal (1+50). The 35mm picture was taken with Tri-X film and also developed with Rodinal (1+50). It is no surprise that the faster film and smaller negative size produced much more noticeable grain. But it is also no surprise to me that the stronger grain combined with the high acutance (edge contrast) of the Rodinal developer can produce more apparent sharpness.
More to think about.
Thoughts? Comments?
Mere Film Photography 
One must weigh the trade offs between the two formats and choose which ever one prefers. I shoot APS-C sensor sizes mirrorles becuase the cameras and lenses are smaller and lighter than 35mm sensor format mirrorless which is small than medoum format digital mirrorless.
Medium format digital makes better photographs than 35mm format digital which makes better photographs than APS-C format digital.
BUT ONLY IF I DECIDE TO VIEW ALL MY PHOTOGRAPHS WITH A MAGNIFYING GLASS. 😃
Which I don’t. Put down the magnifying glass and enjoy the art.😁
LikeLike
Hi Khürt, Agreed. It’s about a half mile walk from our house to the lake. More than once as I was lugging the Hasselblad kit with two lenses and the big Gitzo tripod back up the hill I asked myself why I didn’t bring one of the 35mm cameras and the small tripod instead.
LikeLike