Oh, sorry I remembered that wrong. I would love to use Fuji S400 all the time, but the F/4 Fujinon and the other lenses, only ONE of which (the Helios) is faster than F/2.5, and the others all F/2.8 or F/3.5 or 4.0, mean that I usually end up using the 800 ISO. Especially with the SLR, as I have more problems avoiding camera shake and need to use higher shutter speeds. I have a roll of 400 in each of my L+21/4 and my R+35/2.5, but mostly these days I'm having fun with the Bessaflex. I have 8, 16, 30, 58 and 135mm M42 lenses! It gets very busy unscrewing and screwing them. They were all bought at ultralow prices. The most expensive is the one I use least, the circular fisheye Peleng--US$200. Even the excellent Fuji shop scans are just not good enough with the smaller image area to give good stitched panoramas, although I've mastered the technique. I'm getting the Epson 3200T scanner for the office, ahem, and will scan my own after that. Oh, and I'm also getting an upgraded Kiev SLR (6 x 6) which should be fun. Yesterday the azaleas were glorious at Tokyo's most famous temple, and I should have some truly amazing shots... Tomorrow my photographer friend from China will be in Japan and we are off for a shoot together. We are now in Japan's Golden Week of national holidays, so it's goodbye to work for a while.
No ,Roger . My dissatisfaction meant the 400, which looks mostly so very nice when you use it. 200 is fine and 800 too. I used it first with the SLR and the zoom and found it beeing a stunning invention ! Never had it in the camera longer than 2 days, so far I can't say anything about this problem. Superia 200 got zh above pic is a mistake BTW, it's Kodak Supra 400, which is "MY" 400 negfilm now.
The Nokton is performing well here, and Fuji S200. By the way, you have to develop Fuji S800 VERY QUICKLY after exposure, otherwise you will be disappointed. I got my first deeply disappointing roll from the TX-1 yesterday... the film had been in the camera for about four months (recently I've been playing with my Bessamatic!) and the results were dreadful. Maybe this effect contributed to your own dissatisfaction with this emulsion?
0 
{K:86139} 4/30/2005