Fuji Provia 400F vs 100F

G

Guest

Hi,

I used in the past only the Fuji Provia 100F, if I needed a higher ISO number.

I would be interested, whether somebody has hands-on experiences in comparison the 100F with the 400F.

Is colour reproduction the same, or is the 400F fading out a little bit? (Fuji says it would be the same)

Grain & Sharpness for scans and prints later in the size of 20cm x 30cm and 40cm x 50cm

Price differences compared to usability. Do you use the 400F as often compared to the 100F or would you recommend an even higher ISO film for cases with not enough light or Zooms?

thanks in advance

dirk
 
G

Guest

Dirk

I've used nothing but Provia 100F and 400F for colour work for the last 18 months or so. I first of all tried the 100F and was bowled over by it - the same, if not better, grain than Velvia with more all-round useable natural colour rendition.

I had never used a slide film faster than ASA100 but was so impressed with the 100F, and so unimpressed by the amount of light available in Northern English winters, that I decided to try the 400F. I don't think that in the last eight months I've actually used the 100F (partly because I bought the 400F in bulk) and I don;t think that there have been many instances when I would have said that I regretted not using the 100F.

My slides are projected on a Pradovit 600IR through a SuperColorplan lens and if you stand close to the screen you can make out the increased grain but, much to my surprise, it's by no means objectionable.

I don't scan so I can't comment on the effect on prints.

As far as colours are concerned, I haven't done any comparitives. It may be the case that there may be a little fade but I haven't noticed it. The thing I've noticed the most with both these emulsions is how much they show off the colour reproduction and punch of the Zeiss glass. I use these films in my RX, T2 and Minolta Dynax 5 with its cheapo 28-85 zoom - the difference between the Zeiss and the Minolta is like the difference between Velvia and Astia, the Minolta, though uniformly well exposed, is terribly wishy-washy and lifeless in comparison.

I certainly see the 400F as just being a "fast 100F" albeit with grain (as you would expect). Please try it and let us know your (more technically minded than mine) conclusions.

Best regards
John
 
G

Guest

Thank you John!

I will give it a try. The desire to use a 400F instead of a 100F is with this German weather very high - this spring I thought already about a 1600...



dirk
 
G

Guest

Dirk

Another thought on this one - I'm sure that I've read somewhere that Sensia is the same emulsion as Provia although not tempered(?) for correct speed. Have you heard this and is it true? It may have been that the 100 and 400 were the same as Provia but the Sensia 200 was different. Sensia is a lot cheaper than Provia F.

By the way I did a very quick comparative of 100F and 400F on holiday in the northeast of England last week - a quick landscape at f8 on my T2. Should get the slides back tomorrow and I'll let you know what differences there are once I've mounted and projected them. Had some good light for a change - very windy with lots of broken cloud. Great for photos - not so good for cycling!

Regards
John
 
G

Guest

Dirk,

I shoot nature photography professionally and have used both the Fuji 100F and 400F films in my Contax 645. To put my comments in context, I usually shoot at very small apertures for maximum depth of focus, and always with a tripod or stabilizing device for maximum sharpness. Handheld shooters, obviously, must higher speed, lower quality film.

The 100F is very excellent film, with some of the finest grain I have seen. I personally find the color palette muted (still pretty) compared to Velvia or Kodak E-100VS. I use Fuji 100 when I want to push to 200 because it does not lose much contrast and the grain stays fine.

I would say that my standard film (80%) is E-100VS(I do NOT recommend any other Kodak 100 speed films over the Fuji). It has more grain than the Fuji, no doubt, but not excessive and medium format more than makes up for the difference. The colors, however, are much more vibrant and beautiful without being exaggerated, and contrast is better than Velvia (which I still use as the "ultimate" sunrise/sunset or bright flower film--but slow speed, ugh!).

I have used the 400F occasionally. The film is good, not great, compared to the Fuji/Kodak 100 speed offerings. Colors are noticeably muted. Nonetheless, it is my choice for shooting flowers on windy days and the Texas bluebonnet photo on my website (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
see the "Nature's Gardens" Gallery)was shot with it--could not have got the shot otherwise and it certainly is professional quality.

My recommendation, stick to the 100 films as primary, use the 400 as back-up for windy, low light, or (horrors!) hand held shooting.

Guy Harrison
 
G

Guest

Dirk

I have similar problems with speed and colour contrast against available light. So far I have discovered that Ektachrome E-200 satisfies beatifully. Try this at 200, use also at +1 320, +2 640 and +3 1000. Colours obviously alter, but not by as much as you'ld think. Saves the day if this is in the bag as opposed anything else.

Try it, works for me.

Simon Radclyffe
 
G

Guest

Dirk

I personally love 400F. It definately has more grain than 100F but I think it looks better; but then again, I think a bit of grain is a very good thing. I've found the utter lack of grain in 100F to be disconcerting somehow. Plus, you're using 400F is low light situations. The eye has more trouble seeing into these situations anyway, so the amount of grain is of no hindrance to image quality. Additionally, you can push 400F to 800 easily; the image holds up very well. Shoot on the streets at dusk or night with 400F pushed one stop and handheld is easy.

In regards to Kodak E200, 400F blows this film away in my opinion. To my eye, color rendition and acutance is much better with 400F.

Matthew McDermott
 
G

Guest

Dirk,

See attached pictures of a small fishing harbour in Holland on Provia 400F. Looks great as JPEG of 500-700 pixels, but when enlarging to 30x40 cm without digital manipulation you will definitely see more grain than with Provia 100F (which is superb with respect to fine grain). Still, I personally do like the type of grain of the 400F (see the clouds). However, the glass on your camera does make a big difference: look at the difference in resolution between picture 1 (Nikkor 17-35/2.8 AFS at f:16) and picture 2 (Leica Summilux M 35/1.4 Asph. at I guess f:8). Judge for yourself. Both are Provia 400F.<center><table border=1><tr><td>
Picture 1 (Nikkor 17-35 AFS
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(mime_html.gif k)</td></tr></table></center><center><table border=1><tr><td>
Picture 2 (Leica M6TTL with 35 Lux Asph
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(mime_html.gif k)</td></tr></table></center>
 
G

Guest

O.K., the picture uploading didn't work, I'll give it another try.

Jan Dirk<center><table border=1><tr><td>
Picture 1 (Nikkor 17-35 AFS
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(mime_html.gif k)</td></tr></table></center>

<center><table border=1><tr><td>
Picture 2 (Leica M6TTL with 35 Lux Asph
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(mime_html.gif k)</td></tr></table></center>
 
G

Guest

Dirk,
Can you tell me how to upload pictures? All I do is follow the instructions in the dialogue screens...? Maybe I am doing something wrong?

Thanks,
Jan Dirk
 
G

Guest

Can't visualise pics either.

Definitely would be interested though.

Mark
 
G

Guest

>Most forums will not allow attachments to posts. Instead, you must upload >it to a web site and refer to the URL.
 
G

Guest

Hello,

In the past, I shot weddings using an RZ67, with Mamiya 6 bodies for the available light situations and the reception.

Now shooting weddings entirely with the EOS3, I plan to finally get into the Leica rangefinder for available light, reception use, and eventually the majority of the wedding with a second body with flash. Plan to start with a preowned M4, or 6 (with motor), and the 35F2, and 90F2 asp.

To use the rangefinders exclusively during the entire affair, I must find a way (I know there must be a way) to make a small flip bracket to get the flash (on the second body) above the film plane on one of the M bodies. I don't want to hand-hold a flash above my head using a long sync-cord.

Anyone using something that could help?
 
G

Guest

Hi My favorite over the lens bracket for weddings is the Newton. I got mine in 1993 and have completely worn the info. labels off from both of them. If I remember correctly they were/are made by a guy in Baltimore? It is very light, compact and user friendly. I just now tried to find a website for them without success. Email the guy at this website.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
He's the photographer who first told me about them. Cathy
 
G

Guest

Try
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I just took a look at their website, so I know it's available.
Good luck
ps. Looks very compact for a flash bracket
Colin
 
G

Guest

>Forums usually don't allow attachments. Send them directly to the email >address of the intended recipient.
 
G

Guest

> > Posted by Jeffery Smith on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 9:15 pm: > > >Forums usually don't allow attachments. Send them directly to > the > email >address of the intended recipient. ================================================================= One of the good/BAD features of this forum is the original poster's address is not shown. Therefore you cannot reply offline or send an attachment.
 
G

Guest

> One > of the good/BAD features of this forum is the original poster's > address is not shown. Therefore you cannot reply offline or send an > attachment

Yes, that is a bad point, and also that people continue a thread without pasting at least some information on the subject back into the posting slot after the post wanders off topic.

Sonny Carter
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top