This film is not for use in 35mm cameras. It can only be used for 24mm cameras. The product description did not give you this important information.
You have to watch who the seller is. Never buy a product from the seller who has a very strict return policy. For instance, Photoworld will not allow you to return this product if you bought it by mistake (if you read their return policy, almost nothing can be returned). Always buy things from Amazon or a reputable seller who has a decent return policy. Also, if you see that Amazon is the seller in the product list view, the seller may be switched to a different seller when you enter into the product page. You'll need double check the seller when you place the order.
I have one of the standard kodax avantix cameras, and I must say that I can't tell the difference between this and Kodak film in my camera. I see another reviewer mentioned problems with his olymus and a difference when used in it. My camera is not one of the more expensive one, so I don't expect mych out of it. I find that the pictures are good for my average use. SO check this out, not a problem in my book, but you may have to check for yourself.
I performed extensive tests (about 2 rolls each) of Fuji and Kodak APS films at 100, 200, and 400 ASA, using a Canon ELPH camera (the original aspherical zoom lens model). I shot a variety of outdoor scenes in a variety of lighting conditions (e.g. downtown skyscraper architectural with bright clear blue sunny skies, flowers and trees with both bright sun and shade, rock close-ups in overcast). I shot a few indoor locations, without a flash at ASA 400, with flash for the others. I examined the results for color, range, clarity and grain. Here's what I saw:
For ASA 100, Kodak kicked butt. Clearly better color rendition, and much, much tighter grain and better detail in all the bright lighting situations, especially with panorama print.
For ASA 400, I was pleasantly surprised that Fuji really outperformed the Kodak film. Fuji had vibrant blues and was good all across to the reds. Kodak felt washed out on the blue side, weirdly. Also surprising was that Fuji had tighter grain in bright conditions; they both looked grainy of course in lower light, but the Fuji somehow felt smoother or less chunky in the blown-up panorama prints. It also seemed to have better tonal range in both light and dark settings.
Frankly, neither of the ASA 200 films seemed acceptable to me for outdoor shots; indoors with flash, both were OK and Kodak was maybe better color. Outside, they both felt lower contrast/saturation, subsequently cramped color, didn't have the tight grain of the 100, and didn't work as well in low light and indoors (without flash) as the 400. Just seemed not worth it compared to the two options.
You get what you pay for... In many places and stores the Fuji film is less exppensive than the Kodak. Spend the extra 2 dollars and buy the Kodak. I bought the Fuji film because it was on sale, the first roll that i shot was okay, except that my friend was using the exact same camera as me (Olympus) and he shot w./the Kodak 400 ISO and it was much sharper and much better quality than my shots. Then the second roll of the Fuji i put in jamed and i had to get my camera fixed for a cost of 20 dollars. The peeople at the repair shop said that the film was made improperly and that is why it got stuck in my camera. I will never buy Fuji film again, their developing process is also sub-par compared w/Kodak but i won't disuss that here. Save yourself the touble buy the Kodak.
Recently I shot several hundred photos with my Elph 2 camera using both Fuji and Kodak film. The pictures were taken under a wide range of lighting conditions. To my eyes, the photos taken with Fuji 400 film are consistently brighter with more vivid colors than those taken with Kodak film. Fuji 400 is now the only film that I buy.
(7 customer reviews)
Make sure that your camera works with the film2009-04-08
Go For the Kodak2002-07-25
My Cart
Larger image or other views
