The cost of the camera will prevent 98% of any enthusiast from ever considering it. Not worth the money when the resolution looks so poor at times. A Nikon R10 or R8 would produce a much sharper super 8 image. With the loss of Super 8 stocks like Kodachrome 40 (which was awful for the environment) and Plus-X (the most amazing super 8 stock of all time), this is a never buy for me.
That was kind of the point. Kodak wasn’t marketing this to the average hipster doofus. Why have Christopher Nolan and J. J. Abrams talk it up if they weren’t aiming for the prosumer market? Unfortunately, at this price, only Nolan and Abrams could afford to use it, and the likelihood of that is extremely remote, especially Nolan… As glad as I am it’s finally here, I wonder if it wouldn’t have been better to just let it die. The moment when it could have made the most impact was long past, and there’s been too many expectations this camera has drummed up that it ultimately failed to satisfy.
B&H clickbait..... tell me one thing B&H actually knew about Super 8 cameras before the Kodak camera release? They're just reciting regurgitated info provided by kodak. Get Pro8mm staff to review the camera instead for a true review -- not by some "camera walmart" kodak distributor. You can't just use "any" vintage C mount lens on this camera as you say. Many vignette at certain focal lengths and the lens must be collimated to the Kodak camera manually by technicians who know what they're doing. At this price, the camera should have a variety of prime lenses if not providing a zoom lens. You can't film everything on a 6mm lens and not all C mount lenses will work. Not allowing the LCD screen to reflect correct exposure brightness and only relying on an exposure meter is antiquated and poor form. All modern DSLR cameras these days display brightness based on lighting for the set ISO. Why can't the kodak camera do that for $5495??
i know you guys have to sell this thing but as someone who grew up making home movies and stop motion cartoons with super 8 and whose camera, grey card and sekonic light meter are still in my closet - this this is ridiculous. it's not even that great of a super 8 camera with no facility for stop motion. booooo.... and the COST?! wtaf.... you can get a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more capable camera for a fraction of the cost on ebay. "who is this for?" - it's for a music video shoot where it needs to appear in camera as some hipster shooting super 8 film for some reason.
At $750 (as announced nearly a decade ago) alongside their other cloud and development promises it would have been a maybe splurge and buy as a self gift. At more than $5k with outdated ports and made of plastic... I already forgot this camera exists
A cursory glance at eBay reviews tested working vintage cameras for less than $400. It’s difficult to imagine that many customers would be willing to pay the enormous price being asked for this new one. The difference in camera price alone could cover a whole lot of film and processing!
I'm sure a few factors of high asking price have to be the limited supply and this being targeted to production companies and maybe wedding videographers who are willing to pay the upcharge.
This is exactly why we don't get a lot of new film cameras. The used market is too big and people aren't going to want to pay for a new camera even with new parts and a warranty. People are complaining about the cost of the Pentax 17, new higher end cameras are just going to be even more expensive.
Kodak should have figured out a way to make the camera cheaper and make the profits off selling the film for it. Missed opportunity, especially with the resurgence in film and retro analogue look.
For this to work, Kodak needs to make the film, processing and scanning more affordable per roll. What gets me is that with modern technology and production line processes, one would think they would have figured out a way to improve it all to make it more affordable. But they haven't. They still rely on old 20th century factory equipment and film processes to carry them through. They are not a company that innovates. They are a modern example of the old Smith Corona typewriter company in a digital word processor age. They have no drive or direction. They have no leadership with purpose. They have no vision. Kodak is a shell of a company. George Eastman would be ashamed.
????? $5,495.00 ????? Kodak Super 8 Camera Battery Pack $129.00 ??? Kodak Super 8 Camera Battery Charger $249.00 ???? who should buy this? What drugs did they take, I want them too!!!
not a single mention of how, in the 7 years between announcement ant fanal release, the price went from $400-$750 to... uhm... $5.500 ... I mean... a price increase of more than 10x and take into account how inflation hit the consumers during that time... Yeah... Those extra perks like on board sound recording and built in video-tap can't really measure up to what is essentially a gimmicky novelty camera.
When I was in Art School in the late 90s I rescued my dad’s super 8 camera from the closet. For a complete novice this camera proved to be surprisingly user friendly. Shooting at the classic frame rate gets you 5 min of playback per roll if I remember correctly, and you want as much time as possible because the Cost of film and development was definitely what stopped me from using it more often. However back then there was no real alternative for getting that look. Checking now, looks like the cost of film and developing has increased significantly. My advice, if you want to shoot super 8, buy a vintage camera and shoot a couple rolls, the user interface was designed for the average consumer, don’t be intimidated by the lack of digital tech. You can always turn around and sell the camera for about how much you paid if you want to upgrade. Also even though you will probably have the film scanned, track down an old school projector, that’s the best way to enjoy this retro experience. However modern digital is SO GOOD, and you can probably find a filter to make it look like vintage movie film if you really want. Unless you have money to burn, extremely expensive film can only hinder the creative experience.
Good. Lord. $5,495 on B&H. That's absolutely insane for 3min recording time. If it was 16mm with a 400ft capacity maybe that price would be justified. You can almost buy 2 Leica M6's for that price. (Yes, I'm well aware that's 35mm still camera but still wtf)
Having grown up shooting Super 8 movies, I really wanted to have this camera. The idea of shooting on film takes me back in time over 40 years. But is that worth the price? Who is the market audience? It's too expensive for the nostalgia market, and there are better options for wedding videographers and filmmakers. If this camera was $1000, maybe.
They might sell a few of these as a rich mans toy. But no professional would use this except for a 3rd cam with 2 or 3 rolls shot for a fun outtakes sequence.
Yeah all the extra features on this are excessive for a professional shoot. Why pay thousands of dollars more for an "easy mode" 8mm camera when you can just learn how to use an older 8mm camera? Trust fund prosumers and influencers seem to be the target audience of this.
I don’t care what comes with it. It’s still at least $4500 too much. Kodak could have re-invigorated the super 8 market and sold a ton of film if they had stuck with a sub $1000 price for the camera. But.. greed will kill this before it even begins.
I would definitely buy this if it weren't 5 grand. I already have a vintage super 8 and I would totally add this to my collection - if I didn't have to sell my car to afford this.
Original boxy Super8 "people's cameras" were $40. There were more expensive versions for $70 and $175. Sure, inflation. Still, $4.5K is insane when one can have BM or Sigma FP for half the price.
There is absolutely no reason why this camera should cost this much. Even with all the modern features, which are standard in every digital camera, this thing should have cost $1-1.5k.
Not shelling out 4.5K for a super 8 camera of any kind. Could never justify it. I guess rich hobbyists and avant-garde types, but here again, for the price, there are cheaper and better options. The digital conveniences are nice, but unnecessary to an experienced film shooter who actually used the format back in the day. You can use a cell phone for a video assist and the audio feature didn't have XLR plugs. I prefer using a separate recorder and a dedicated audio person when I can. I didn't see the ability for it to do single frame. With all of that digital hardware loaded into a camera, a simple programmable time lapse feature would've been nice, especially at that price. On the plus side, the xtal speeds are a great option and the registration on the footage looked rock steady. Still don't know how loud the camera is, which is a consideration for sync sound, especially if you're shooting indoors in a studio. I have a Canon 814AZ that has worked fine for me, just wish I had some projects for it to justify the cost of film and scanning. Still glad to see Kodak is keeping the old format alive for the demands of a boutique market. Just hope it's better built than the Kodak XL55 my dad fell for in 1973. Overpriced piece of junk designed to self destruct when the warranty expired. Let's hope Kodak has abandoned that business practice at least.
If it was 550 if would make sense and maybe even sell well. But at 5500, with the quality the image produced and only 3mins worth of film (which also costs to develop), unfortunately this might flop
I been watching since it was first announced, I though wow...then the price creep upwards....then no news then price increase. People thought it was dead. Then the 5k+ price, I went out and bought some vintage super 8 cameras, some in mint working condition, for 1/10 the cost. I wanted this to be good, but the cost is just not justified.
This camera is dead on arrival due to the price. If this was under $1000 it would be a slam dunk among people looking to experiment with super8, but at $5k who exactly is this for? You could buy a vintage super8 cam for a few hundred bucks and you have a new toy to play with. For $5k you could get yourself a super16 camera with sync sound capability and film+processing. The product doesn't even look well made.
I feel like out of all the cool tech there is to invest in, simple film camera's such as this have to be the most unreasonably expensive, I'm not well-versed in film industry maybe there's a reason but this, if anything is more of a collectable than it ia a camera. over 5k for a few mins of footage? How is analog supposed to come back if its so inaccessible
I owned Super 8s, the Bolex 155 and the Bealieu 4008 with Angénieux lens. Save yourself money (film is expensive, developing is even more, and not included with the film) and get a M43 video camera, smear the back element of the lens with a very light oil (the stuff from the side of your nose works well) and shoot away. Voila, instant nostalgia.
Unfortunately, my Bolex 155 super 8mm doesn't work. However, my Bolex Paillard 8mm and my father's old Bell and Howell still works. I just have no desire to run film through them at this time. It is way too easy for me to recreate the old 8mm film look with my digital camera and vintage lens and post effects.
I'd rather buy a used Sony HDV camera that shoots in 24P (which I have) This Kodak is way too expensive. Ironically, I have an old Super 8 camera that someone gave me, so now that I know they still make the film cartridges, I may actually use it one day.
What exactly would you be looking for? And what would be your definition of a “pro” feature? From what I can see, it’s got quite a few things that would be considered “pro” features.
@@cubdukat How much is the upgrade cost alone to take an older high end camera and have the gate width modded? And add crystal sync? Exactly. These "enthusiasts" (meaning thrift store hobbyists) are mostly comparing apples to chewing gum.
I would love to try out this camera but WOW, the cost is pretty outrageous. I know, I know, film is expensive. I grew up on it. But WOW, you really have to have big $ to own and operate this. And what if the labs go out of business, which is a real possibility? There are so many if's here. Would still love to try the camera though! Looks compelling.
I honestly dont see the point of buying this, for anyone, you shot modern settings, people on modern clothing, etc with a 60s look.........maybe for additional footage for a film...or maybe but maybe for documentary film...but even if thats the case unless you are a rich person and have 4,500 dollars and you dont give a sht about spending money on things you like but dont need maybe thats the target buyer for this thing because I dont see anyone else buying this.
Hopefully they sell enough to make a cheaper model and lower the price of developing the film..I love this format but the cost keeps me from shooting more than a roll a year or so
Id buy it faster than a blink of an eye, or both eyes, if affordable. Everything else is good, especially allowing lens changeability and the modern capabilities.
If it was like $2500-3k it would be cool to normalize this as a behind the scenes camera for film sets. I like the nostalgia and the real use of this is renting it for a section of a project. No way anyone is spending FX6 money on this.
I'm not sure this is the best way for Kodak to stay relevant. Maybe stick to $200 printers? Printers are nice. $5k can buy you a home office full of printers. Kodak...We're leaving our print on tomorrow. Also, causing divorces and bankruptcies.
The camera has been out for a while and I still can’t find any reviews or footage from real life owners. There is one unboxing from a channel that has nothing to do with cameras… this is a fascinating camera, but totally inaccessible. Come on Kodak!!!!!
You would think that a camera costing $5,495.00 would come with a gadget to automatically clean the film gate before installing any film cartridge! I remember making better looking Super 8 film with my old GAF camera in the mid-1970s. I feel sorry for today's young filmmakers, who have been duped into thinking they're buying something great for this price. You're better off getting a used Super 8 camera from eBay and you can spend the rest of the money on a cheap digital camera, which you can run at the same time to record your sound with, a decent microphone to plug into the digital camera, and some decent lighting equipment. Say no to this piece of garbage. Kodak has abandoned young filmmakers, they don't deserve to make one cent off of this camera!
8mm formats could be cheaper with thats: •Gadgets for coustomers who will produce own 8mm film. •Basic-Silent-Mechanical 8mm camera (not super8 and digital) •İnstant lab kit for making laboratory process yourself.
Over priced and not really worth it. You can find an excellent working Beaulieu or NPR super 9 camera for a couple hundred Euros that will out last this Kodak camera.
The outrageous price PLUS the cost of film and processing makes this literally useless. And the quality is just plain bad. There is a reason why video replaced Super 8.
It's priced at $5,500 so Kodak can make their money back on R&D. Just appreciate the effort to advance the film movement. However, that being said, I don't believe this will help make the come back actually come back.
Who would shell out the absolutely ridiculous price to buy this? The quality and resolution of Super 8 film is incredibly poor, not to mention the cost for a 50 foot (3 minutes, almost $50.00!!) cartridge and processing (another $30!). What was Kodak possibly thinking by marketing this camera?
Love how this looks, but.. Like Others have said, I could Sacrifice 1k to 1500, but almost 5,000!? lol, might as well use my Classic super 8 cameras or even my 16mm cameras and just send the film in for digitizing. Yes.. It's expensive if you do it often, but not once in a while for passionate projects. Will this push me to film more often? Hell yeah, but for now I'll just use what I have, or filters in After Effects.
j'aurais préféré du kodakrome 40 un vrai film sans grains . Une caméra Beaulieu qui a trente ans dispose d'un viseur reflex et un obturateur variable et un zoom Angenieux rien a voir avec le gadget de kodak .
It's without competition because the price makes it such an outlier. You could get pretty good digital cameras for the price, or a refurbished professional movie camera if you want to shoot on film. It'd be slightly insane to buy this camera for home videos - which is what super 8 was intended for!
Do you know what else can give you a super 8 look with all the modern conveniences? An Instagram filter. You'd be mad to buy this for the price they are asking. This should be sub 1k in price.
They really shot themselves in the foot with the price. If this was 500-1000 they would fly off the shelves and, oh yeah, imagine how much film they would sell too. 🤦🏻♂️
Wait until you buy a cartridge of film for $65 and process it or $10 and it lasts for 3and a half minutes. You have to be rich and crazy to buy this camera.
Those complaining about the price have not retro outfitted old super8s with a monitor. Let alone all the other additions they have added in on this camera. My comment to you is "more of me!" If anyone wants to rent mine, hollar.
