A week ago I was planning to do a quick shoot to get some ballpark comparisons between these 4 films. I was wanting to compare 400UC to the new Gold 100 since grain size is very close between those two. And since grain size between the new Gold 200 and old Gold 100 are very close, Im comparing those two. But to make it easy I've put all 4 of them side by side. From the last time I shot new and old Gold 100, I again noticed similar results. Here is what I got with this quick round of tests: 400UC the greens and reds are more saturated then the Gold films. Pretty much any color in the 400UC is bolder then any Gold film. All the Gold films seem to have about the same saturation. Old Gold 100 has more contrast then the new Gold films. 400UC has slightly more contrast then old Gold 100. Color on Gold 200 seems slightly more vibrant then the 100 version, but this may be an anomaly due to camera exposure. Blue sky is coarser on both 400UC and old Gold 100 due to their higher contrast. Blue sky grain seems about the same on both new Gold 100 and new Gold 200. Colors on old Gold 100 can be muddier, but sometimes pop slightly more then the new Gold films. New Gold 100 continually wants to scan brighter then other films. But this also could be due to slight over exposure from the one camera. But between new Gold 100 and 200, I didn't notice much of a grain difference. Others on here may notice more then I did. I was wanting to see a grain difference between the 100 and 200. All in all 400 UC still held up very well in grain size being it is the least grainy of all these films. I couldn't tell a sharpness difference this test, but others may see a difference. Anyway take a look and see what you come up with. For equipment I shot on all Canon 35mm cameras and all scans were done at 3200 dpi on a Minolta Dual 4. All used 50mm prime lenses on a tripod. Focus varied on some shots, so I didn't include closeups of those. All were shot at f8 and I just used one camera for the metering and adjusted the others to keep it consistent. If it was 125 speed on the 100, I shot the 400 at 500 speed, and so on. Keep in mind I'm not a pro, so these results are only ballpark. I just wanted to see if any differences showed up with what I did end up with. Here's the full frame shot of the first pic. http://photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=37732384 And the 100% crops of the same pic. http://photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=37732484 Pic #2 full frame. http://photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=37732584 And crops and color changes. http://photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=37732684 Third full frame. http://photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=37732784 And crops, etc. http://photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=37732884 Fourth full-frame. http://photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=37732984 Color comparisons. http://photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=37733084 And last pic #5 full frame. http://photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=37733184 Color comparisons again. http://photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=37733284 From this test I don't see any demerit for using the new Gold 200 over the 100. Maybe a better scanner will show some differences. 400UC is still a great film, but for some applications the colors may be too bold. Color is worst on the old Gold 100, but it is still bolder then the film that replaced it. From my last test old Gold 100 still seemed sharper. 400UC is also quite sharp. From this I don't see any problems using the new films if you want the most accurate color you can get. 400UC fails in that area. But 400UC is most prefered on overcast days. I will still go the 160VC route if I need a slow film, as to me Gold 100-7 is only better in terms of color quality.