Solid titanium top and base plates 6. Minimalist viewfinders with essential information only, on a red vs black background. 7. Centre-weighting is very accurate if used by anyone with basic exposure skills. 8. Mirror lock up is easy to use San Marcos Towing Company

None . .

the head is even better..solid and very smooth to pan around, its a real pro gear..im a 5'6" man, and this tripod when fully extends is way over my head..strongly suggest anyone , if you can get it used, buy it, its worths every dime you put in it..bogen made in italy, the name to trust. Trenton truck repair

None , .

well build, great quality, rock solid, heavy, very sturdy. | A/C Repair Service

cant find any, best buy for the money.

- strong colors - impressive sharpness, grain...ideal for outdoor photography

- skin tone is ugly. APS is a consumer only market, so if nice skin tone is what you seek, try Kodak Advantix (though it isn't as saturated and has more grain--well a little more anyhow, you wouldn't notice on a 4 x 6).

This was my first stab at an APS film since my younger brother bought the ultra-compact Fuji Q1 nexia cam. I was really impressed with the saturation, sharpness, and granularity that's almost finer than Kodak Max 400 in 35mm. The one thing I din't like was skin tones. Fair skinned people (including myself) came out looking ghostly-white, and blemishes were overexagurated, as this film has the same curse as many 35mm Superia films--oversaturated REDS.

Similar Products Used:

- Fuji Nexia 200; very very BLUE..I dont like it - Kodak Advantix 400; very stable and versatile APS film--best one I've used thus far, even though I'm a Fuji Freak lol

The colors look natural

Too much grain (even for a 400 ISO film)

I used this film to shoot take-offs of airplanes at Amsterdam Airport. The results were not satisfactory. The photos are sharp, colors are nice, but there is way too much grain. Too much, even for a 400 ISO film. This was my second film I have used (recently bought a Minolta Vectis S-1) and I am still figuring out which film to go for: Kodak or Fuji. Sofar, Fuji hasn't make me happy. Right now, my kodak film is being processed and I can't wait to see the results. I have read a lot of good reviews at this site about the Kodak APS films......and that made me very curious. I used to use Fuji for the 35mm, but I don't think I am going to use Fuji anymore for APS photography. If the results of the Kodak film are good, I'll use just Kodak for my APS camera.

Customer Service

n.a.

Similar Products Used:

Fuji Nexia 200 ISO, Kodak Advantix 200 ISO

Great indoor pictures.

Not as good outdoors

Tried it on a trip to Teotihuacan. The pictures I took with the Kodak 400 were significantly sharper, plus they were a little bit darker with the Nexia 400. Still, later used the film indoors and had amazing results.

Customer Service

Haven't tried

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Advantix 400.

Less expensive than Kodak(By only a dollar or two)

Grainy, Not very good for the panoramic, wide,or classic formats APS offers because of grain and unsatisfactory color

Not as good of a film as Fuji says it to be, so I would not recommend it to anybody. And I used it for scenic and people shots.

Customer Service

never even tired

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Advantix 200, 400
CVS Photo Center 200

cheaper than Kodak.

VERY grainy at ISO 400
Image sharpness inconsistant

This was my first experience w/ Fuji films, & found it disappointing. This stuff is as grainy as all "get-out". Perhaps ISO 100 or 200 will fare better. Spend the extra dollar or so it will take to get Kodak (at least at this speed).

Image sharpness was Ok at times, but never consistantly. Grain was still a problem in better shots. Perhaps this problem is inherent in the APS format.

Customer Service

None needed