A $5,495 Disappointment | Kodak Super 8 Film Camera
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- This video discusses the release of the long-awaited Kodak Super 8 film/digital hybrid camera. Kodak announced this camera over eight years ago, and it is now reaching the market. With a price tag 10x greater than initially communicated, is there a market for Kodak to fight for in the long-vacated Super 8 film space?
.
Leave a comment if you have any questions and I'll do my best to answer them.
Thanks to @kodak @KodakSuper8 for the footage.
.
.
.
Josh Diaz is a Commercial Director of Photography and Affiliate Member of the Canadian Society of Cinematographers. He’s also an Adobe-certified Video Editor.
Kodak's new S8 camera:
www.kodak.com/...
WEBSITE - VideosbyJosh.com
IG - / videosbyjoshdiaz
Want a discount on the best film emulation software on the market?
Use code VIDEOSBYJOSH for 10% off at www.dehancer.com/
SUBSCRIBE HERE ► @forkrightfilms
Thanks for watching!
#kodak #camera #film
When Kodak first announced this, the price was going to be $400-$700, there would be a film ecosystem where youd purchase film+processing for about $50 a pop. Then they upped the expected price the next year, then nothing for 5+ years... The fact that it still has a micro usb lets me know there was just a first production run of these things sitting for that entire time, and in 2023 someone had the brilliant idea to offload them. So unfortunately, I dont think this is the first step in a film camera relaunch, theyre just cutting losses here.
I think this is probably the most likely situation. And the price point is meant to attract luxury buyers with loads of disposable income. Get as much as they can for this failed project.
No disrespect here, but I've *never* heard of any figures of $400- $700 for this. Kodak bought the patents from a European company and then they sat on it. But that Euro company had there's listed at 2 grand and that was many years ago.
I'm not surprised the price is inflated as it is.
@@renc2002 $400-700 was the price given when originally announced in January 2016. Just search the internet.
@@renc2002 Search for a video on the Verge titled "The 8mm Camera Return Explained by Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke". In that video he gives that as the targeted price. To be fair, he did say once they reached scale, but that was the intent.
Yes. I heard this too. I can also assume pre-Covid/inflation on parts is a huge reason why as well. A manfrotto tripod I use to buy for $600 is now $1300 just because they can. Companies are charging more and we are making less with even less spending power. It’s wild Kodak thinks this will work.
Kodak invented digital photography in 1975. Then proceeded to do nothing and let the rest of the world surpass them. Selling a $5k stupid hybrid retro film video camera is right in line with their business sense.
I think the people who do buy it will love it. I just wish more people could buy it.
@@DOPJoshDiaz Yeah I was a little harsh. Just a shame the price is insanely high. $999 maybe.
@@johnnywishbone831nah.. 300-500$ max
Just get it’s big brother 16mm for half the price. Don’t be fooled by an extended gate 😂… you need to keep in mind development is constant so save your money. The film look is incredible and just can’t be imitated. But this is marketed towards new people…
@@johnnywishbone831Kodak created digital photography. Yet here you are bitching within the medium they played a MASSIVE part in creating and maintaining throughout the decades. So A) be thankful. B) if you’re paying 5 grand for super 8mm film for one of nostalgic UA-cam video. That’s your fault man. I really don’t know what to tell you
Kodak saw what Leica did with the M6 and thought they could get away with it.
They should make a 16mm or 35 mm version and price that at $5300
Perhaps. It seems to me like the costs got out of hand, and now they need to correct. Eight years of RND can't be cheap. However, it's still massively overpriced, IMO.
How do you figure, when a Pro8mm Classic with a Max8 gate is $3500, without crystal sync, without a digital viewfinder, and without Kodak manufacturing and warranty. HBO used them for Winning Time. Rental houses rent them for $450 a day. 8mm is still in demand for things like music videos, art films, weddings, etc. Plenty of people will buy this, it is reasonably priced for what it is, it just isn't for most people.@@DOPJoshDiaz
The things you said in this video instantly make me realise this camera isn’t marketed to you or for you.
‘Retro style film camera’
‘Film style video camera’
‘Nobody has been developing it other than kodak’ There have been other companies trying to make a super 8 camera, logmar most recently from whom kodak bought this concept from for the new camera.
‘Unique to view your film on an lcd’ Every 16mm 35mm and 65mm camera used in a professional environment will have a video tap for viewing digitally.
‘you can only record audio at the lower frame rates’ The fact that you can even record any internally digitally recorded audio on a film camera is pretty much a 1 of a kind. Not to mention it’s crystal sync for sync sound which is also a professional feature almost no super 8 cameras have.
‘3 minutes at 18fps’ 3.5 minutes at 18 and the camera isn’t made to shoot interviews obviously.
‘shooting film for the film aesthetic’ 🤨
‘super 8 was birthed in a need to save money’ No it wasn’t it was created as an easy to use format, no home movie was going to be shot on 35mm. Also it kodaks super 8 films were never cheapest. So if you started with super 8 on a budget you likely weren’t shooting kodak film.
‘when 35mm got too expensive people went to 16mm and down to 8’ again, no they didn’t, most people who shot 8mm never shot 35 or even 16.
‘it prices everyone out of buying the camera’ It prices out people who want to ‘try out the film aesthetic’ sure but it’s not made for that type of person. It has professional features for people wanting to shoot low budget music videos or indie shorts.
‘kodak should’ve gone the direction of printer makers’ nice idea now all the film would be even more expensive because you can’t differentiate super 8 for the kodak camera and super 8 for other consumers.
‘the product they’ve been subsiding on’ they make almost an irrelevant amount of income from their film business, their earnings report confirmed that. In fact that subsidise their film business with their other businesses.
‘they could’ve given us a more expensive system to invest in down the line’ This IS the expensive system. it’s got professional features, if you want to experiment, buy that old super 8 camera off ebay. But if you want one that looks good and you can put modern lenses on and sync sound with, you have to buy this.
‘you can grab any number of film cameras’ literally my point previously.
‘it has micro usb’ yeah fair enough the design is the same from 2017 but they should and might have to change it to usb c before selling in the eu
‘i don’t see very many people buying them’ i can assure you this will be sold out pretty quick, just like the logmar professional super 8 camera that now costs over 10k.
‘indulge in the novelty’ sure there will be some collectors, but this is for schools, rental houses, indie film makers, music video shooters etc.
‘the price is just so unhinged’ yes, it’s expensive, but it’s not unhinged for a limited production camera. Cameras can only be cheap if you build 100k units. this isn’t that, it’s custom built, sourcing all those parts in small quantities, paying the labour to assembly it not on a production line, not to mention the huge amount of r&d on an item that isn’t mass market. Capitalism and consumerism has caused the idea that everything has to be cheap, this just cannot be priced any longer at the expected 700$ or 2500$ because of the costs associated with it.
‘that kodak has to fix’ they literally do not, they will sell them all at this price to people who value what they’ve made.
I won’t be buying it, but that’s also partly for other reasons than the price, but it’s seemingly not for people like you anyway, so it just joining in the bashing of a project just because you don’t see the benefits of the product seems a bit out of touch.
the most informative, in touch, unbiased comment. instead of people just bashing due to price point people should recognize & analyze why it costs that much.
They are building a new infrastructure for modern motion film cameras for consumers. I expected this because they are getting their footing for this lane hopefully other companies will follow and we see a competitive market with lower prices. With all that being said I’m not paying 5k lmao someone will tho!
just putting it out there 7:27 favorite part of the video!!
😅
I could understand the price if this was a 35mm or even a 16mm camera, but super8? My Iphone's super 8 app takes better images.
This is a hard no. I've been shooting Fujifilm cameras since 2013 and I can shoot film looking footage right out of camera.
if its made in America (like every part) then I can understand this price tag, but if this is being made in some developing country then now way does this price tag makes sense.
You'd think they'd make more stupid decisions, like reviving the 126 format (which i'd love lol)
Love the camera. Do not love the price. At a push I would consider buying one at a max price of $2K. Although, I don’t think it should be priced any higher than $1.5K
I'm going to try and find this camera in the wild. I'd really like to look it over.
because we now live in a world where companies know there is enough rich people to buy their stuff. Back in the days most of the people where middle class slightly below that or above. Now you have a bunch of people living from paycheck to paycheck and the rich class so companies figured they don't want to deal with the poor ones and they went straigh to the rich ones and when you do that the limiting factor of price of the product you're seling is how good the marketing campain is gonna be and not the common sense and usability of the product itself
it's how much?
Is the camera pin registered? Does it have a rotating mirror to go to the video sensor instead of a prism?
Is there going to be a projector????
Probably not. There's only two projectable Super-8 stocks: Ektachrome 100D and Tri-X.
If this were a 16mm camera, the price would be fully justified.
For a few extra pineapples more than the asking price of this piece of s***, you can get an Arriflex 16 mm
Yeah, look at the airriflex 416. Great camera! I’ve worked with it, plus it has a lot of adaptability to the modern digital world.
@@Paytonwhthe 416 is 100k usd to buy…
@@chrishestand1032 Reconditioned ones are half the price of Kodak
@@samprstn damn I just looked up the price you’re right… well… digital it is lol unless he wants to shoot on an old school super 8 which is still fun
MICRO USB IS CRIMINAL
At this price it is.
feels like an april fools joke that took 6 years to tell
😂🤣😂🤣
Your comment never gets old. I still fall over laughing when I read it. I come back to this video every now and again. I have my Rollei SL83 Super 8 camera.
So F U (forget you) Kodak!!!
The film ecosystem was, by far, the most compelling part of the Kodak Super 8 project. They talked about having a network of partners that would make digitizing your film easier and cheaper. Let's be honest: very few people will shoot Super 8 films to play them back on a projector. This is about getting that film effect into digital video. I shot two 50' cartridges six years ago, and it cost close to $200 to buy the film, get it processed, and scan it to 2K. If Kodak could ever get a hold of the processing ecosystem, the cost-to-shoot could drop, and shooting Super 8 could finally become more than an expensive or professionals-only activity. Even after announcing that the cost would be $400 to $750 for the camera in 2016, they promised that a less expensive model would come in 2017. When I got the email that I could finally get in line to buy the camera, I was shocked that it was over $5,500. I would love to hear the inside story of this project.
I actually thought it was a joke when I saw the price 😂
There are SOOO many quality working used super 8 cameras on eBay for a few hundred $ (I have a couple myself).
I own a beautiful Rollei SL83 that I've had since🤔 forever. So no thank you Kodak😅😂🤣😂🤣
I’ve just paid £420 for a Canon 1014 from eBay and I thought I was getting robbed at that price for a super 8 camera. Prior to that the most I paid was £100. The inherent Lo-if picture quality of super 8 isn’t going to change that much whether it’s a low end or high end camera. Shoot it with a £100 potato and be done!
There are scans of Super 8, particularly from the Logmar camera (which also developed this Kodak camera) which are very close to 16mm in appearance. Do a search on YT for the Logmar Super 8 camera, and also some of the examples on the Pro8mm from their own extended gate Super 8 shoots. The Kodak camera will be used by professionals, either via rental, or the many people who use S8 for the retro look to intercut with fashion videos, weddings etc. For those people, a vintage camera is not guaranteed to be reliable. I know people in production who are considering the Kodak camera simply because it helps with production insurance risk assessment.
Respectfully Simon Super 8 is a quarter the film area of 16mm and even less for Super 16. It’s nowhere near the quality of 16mm. Even if Christopher Nolan shot super 8 with a modified imax camera and Harry Potter scanned it with his magic scanning wand it wouldn’t be anywhere near the quality. I’ve seen really good scans from super 8 Beaulieu equipment and it looks great but it’s still lo-fi and a completely different look from 16mm. I’ve seen and shot both formats on decent equipment and potatoes. They’re not comparable. You shoot super 8 for the lo-if look and not because you can’t afford to shoot on 16mm because there isn’t as much of a difference in cost as you would imagine. You get a better lo-fi look from a potato than a Beaulieu. Just my opinion though. Have a good day wherever you are in the world.
@@SilverAndSensor I know very well what the stats are, and what dogma says the format can and cannot do. I never said anyone would use it as a substitute for 16mm BTW, so I'd appreciate it if we ditched the sarcasm. Since I use Super 8 myself, I've seen with my own scans what's possible now. As I said, take a look on UA-cam for footage shot with the Logmar Super 8 camera, such as this one ua-cam.com/video/3Nh9BTMWj9M/v-deo.html, and some of the other scans done by Pro8mm in their own extended format. Just as modern 4K scans of Super 16 resolve far more quality than they did even in the 2000s (the BBC didn't even rate Super 16 as being HD quality at the time), modern, stabilised scans of Super 8 can also now look extraordinarily good. It's all relative. Modern scans of 16mm have got a lot better, and modern scans of Super 8 have improved in parallel. Just that the newest scans and the format are capable of much more than a lot of people give it credit for.
@@simonwyndham Wow, that Logmar footage does look like 16mm. Way better than any 8mm footage I've seen.
When are people going to wake up to the fact that Kodak is not a very good company. They only make one fantastic product that is available in a variety of flavors… film. And they’re even screwing up the business model of that one. With the resurgence of interest in film photography during the past 7 years, they have decided to kill the goose who laid golden egg by overcharging those new customers. Many early adopters of the current film revival are already switching to vintage digital cameras for some of their photography to mitigate the cost of shooting film. Kodak is run by idiots.
i hate the fact that the price has gone up so much i have always shot on film i never got into Digital when it came out. i remember back when film was cheap now i try to take photos that matter some shops charge alot more than others and i don't know why they are charging so much in some places the only thing that comes to mind is Inflation
The last time I filmed on Super 8 I think the film was $13 and about the same for processing. Niche is the word.
It seems to me the key here is “limited edition.” Kodak is not pricing a tool. Kodak is pricing a luxury lifestyle accessory. It is kind of like the Leica business model.
Leica really doesn't do that though... neither are Leica (with exception) limited runs... nor are they luxury lifestyle... Unless there's somewhere cheap digital Rangefinder cameras? And even back in the days other interchangable lens Rangefinder were pretty much in line with Leica when it came to price....
@@LoFiAxolotlI think if you look at Leica’s marketing, it’s very much luxury lifestyle…from celebrity ambassadors to promotion through Bond movies. A Leica store shares more in common with a Rolex store than normal camera stores.
I'd sooner spend $5k on a Leica product than this.
Nah their main business is to rental houses
It was originally proposed to be a tool specifically for film students so that they could get experience using actual film and film cameras.
When you see the prices of 35mm photo film and now this, you really start to wonder if Kodak is not just trying to kill film once and for all…
I don't get it... the whole Kodak "film look" thing is peaking... and yet kodak decided to price themselves out. Weird strategy, but uhh ok.
Steven Spielberg's wife will buy him one for a holiday gift. Outside of that? I'm at a loss.
Limited edition ? Do they just sell the prototypes to get rid of them ?
🤔(goes to speak)uhh...
I am pretty convinced that this is a good thing. This Camera is for the hypebeasts. People that dont care about the money, they want that thing. I think the reason this exists is because Kodaks priority is to survive and continue to produce film. But they have been losing money left and right since they came back. This is why film prices have spiked during the last years. They are not a profitable company. Every single one of those cameras that will be sold will have a crazy high profit margin. Is the price high? Of course, it's ridiculous. But I can really imagine this product only exists to keep their unprofitable film business afloat. And if that is the case and it works, I have no problem with it at all.
But mixing the LCD, which is a super cool idea, with micro usb...thats just too much.
They should have made it a high quality camera with top of the line specs. The design is great. But if it feels cheap, that would break the concept.
Making money of off the film won't work. They are trying. Look at their prices, they raised them so much to become profitable. They went bankrupt almost twice now trying to make their money by selling film. It does not work in the digital era. I guess this is part of their solution for this problem. And I think it might just work. Look at A24, a Producer House in Hollywood that still makes midbudget, artsy, non-blockbuster movies in 2023. And they keep (or at least used to keep) themselves afloat by selling merchandise. This merchandise is not as ridiculously expensive as this camera, but I think it's a similar concept. If Kodak continues to feed into this very market, that is until now only filled by pixii and leica (with the difference that those cameras are actually great), that might just work for them.
I know it's a far fetched take, especially at this ridiculous price, 3000 would've been better for a well produced camera, but I think its a possibility.
Pretty much a Komodo or FX6 body - I'd rather save up and spend £12k for an Aaton XTR
this is built and marketed as a cine super8 camera through and through. a high end cine super8 camera kind of makes sense in the sense that super8 cameras are being used as an niche artistic choice nowadays. most productions will just rent these, as they do with arris, lenses and the like.
What really gets me is that this expensive camera is plastic. 🤔😳🤨Plastic! Really Kodak, freakin no way. Come on this is a joke right?
Get a Beaulieu super 8 or just go 16mm and get a high end bolex or a cheap aaton for that price....my goodness
Buy a Nizo a truly beautiful 8mm camera with German glass for a couple of 100 bucks. Save a fuck ton for film.
The $5,500 limited edition price seemed like an "influencer" price to me, like some out-of-touch marketing exec thought he could get Marquez Brownlee to spend that for first dibs on the camera. Except young people generally don't care about film because it's not accessible or affordable anymore.
Feels like a missed opportunity. Having shot on my 1960s Super 8 for the past 3 years, I'd love to have a go on a modern Super 8, but not for that price. $2000 would be my limit, so I guess I'll just keep shooting on my old camera, nothing lost, nothing gained.
It's definitely a missed opportunity. This camera is a threat only to two other cameras, Pro8mm's Classic, and Logmar's now-discontinued one, of which this is a distant cousin. The only advantage it has over the Pro8mm cam is that the supply of Beaulieu bodies is drying up, so Pro8mm's bound to start jacking up the price one day.
It's a good thing Kodak's motion picture film operations are strong; they'll certainly soften the financial blow this boondoggle will cost them.
It’s gotta be designed as a specialty camera for a production company that makes music videos and through a a few shots of “real film” in a music video
No arguing that it's pricey. I think the reason is, they did the math and realised they'd messed up. I think you are at risk of underestimating just how hard it is to make a Super 8 camera that's of reasonable quality. Yes, in days gone by, there were mass-market cheap cameras, but they had the advantage of exactly that, mass market economy of scale. The design of the Kodak Super 8 cartridge is both genius and hugely flawed. Camera makers come up against a quality brick wall caused by the pressure plate behind the film. Minute variations in the pressure, smoothness, coating quality of the film, heat, humidity, film tension etc can cause serious image stability issues or even stop the film from advancing. Couple this with the tiny frame size that amplifies the slightest gate weave, pull-down inconsistency and focus breathing and you have a major engineering challenge.
But, but, I hear everyone calling, they used to make millions of 8mm cameras?! Yep, but the manufacturing capability isn't just sitting there dormant, if has to be built and tested and honed. When this has to be done for a small market, that cost per unit becomes considerable. Then factor in the cost of aftermarket support, and profit margin (yep, because there is no proven market precedent for this, so a loss-leader gamble would be madness for an already precarious company) and you soon realise how it would be quite easy to get to a figure like this.
It may well be a self-defeating folly because of the cost too. It looks cheap, because I guess it's been designed to make use of manufacturing techniques that have lower entry costs. Making complex injection mouldings in alloy or high-grade plastics takes serious money tooling which makes no sense for low volumes.
But, the price doesn't look so massive if you consider a commercial shoot where your 40 year old camera fails, you shoot with your B camera and then find the footage is unusable and have to re-shoot. That alone could pay for this camera many times over. I had two Nikon R10s fail and that in itself was over £1000 in second hand cameras down the pan, unfixable. So, as a professional tool, if it's reliable, it's probably worth it. It has a monitor and tap out and is xtal sync, so that sets it apart from anything out there.
But what professional will add this to the pipeline, perhaps Christopher Nolan. But if I'm producing and the Director or DP says to me we need to purchase this for a nostalgic look for our flashback, I'd say there are post solutions to "degrade" the image that will read as 8mm film. And, save us money.
Good analysis
HBO literally just filmed Winning Time using a bunch of Pro8mm Classic Max 8 Cameras. Which retail for $3500 each. And don't have crystal sync, or digital viewfinder tap, you can pay them to add crystal sync, and then you end up paying more than this camera. You can also rent one, for $450 a day. There is a market for these. Rental houses, fine arts schools, movie studios, etc will all want them. People still want Super8 for things like music videos or certain "artsy" ads, or actual fine art, because of the look. And if you want that look, in a brand new manufacturer warranted open it up out of the box and it has it all and also comes from major manufacturer Kodak, this is a normal price. @@JeffersonDonald
@@tenfingerstentoes Still believe it's extreme niche and that replicating the look can be done in post. I'm of the mindset that just because you can doesn't mean you should. We're you involved in the decision making for the HBO project? What were the considerations for the artistic look vs. costs?
No I was not involved in the project. For a movie studio $5500 for a camera is nothing, they would buy 10 of them, its who even cares money. These are places that pay $450,000 for a set of anamorphic lenses for cinema cameras that also cost multiples of this camera. At $5500, these are totally reasonable for wedding videographers who cater to an artsy/nostalgia sort of client base. For what you can charge filming a wedding on super 8, and with the quality you can produce with the advanced features, it will pay for itself in a couple of weddings. It CERTAINLY is a niche product, but that doesn't make it dumb or bad. It means it's not for most people, and I think this is where the confusion is for so many people on this. They think of 8mm as just "that old thing you found in a closet and ran 1 cartridge through for a laugh a couple years ago", but there is more to it than that. @@JeffersonDonald
Super 8 mm used to be a perfect format for home movies. Professional films were always shot on 16 or 35 mm film.
Releasing an amateur camera that costs more than 3 BlackMagic Ursas - which have been used professionally - is ridiculous.
Interested in seeing a sizzle reel of everyone laughing in the salesman's face whenever this camera gets unveiled at conventions and conferences.
🤔 (thinks to self)😅😂😂🤣😂🤣😂😂this comment is gold!!!
People aren't moving back to film as a collective trend for all the practical reasons mentioned. Kodak has produced a limited edition 8mm throwback option for those who want it. They aren't looking to hit the market and sellproduct in droves. It's obvious if one isn't looking at this through a consumerist fast food lens of "this pricing is crazy Kodak, you aren't going to sell millions of these"... This is for those who have money to burn but also professionals. Vloggers, not so much. This camera is a creative tool for professionals and those who want to deep dive into an essentially lost medium.
Then what’s the electronics and sound recording about ? That wasn’t there in the old days and nothing to do with the medium. Much of the price must be going towards new things not lost things.
I reserved my spot for it 3 years ago, now seeing they raised the price really sucks
Just switch it to super 16.. imagine all the film stock they'd sell
If this camera had an automatic develop of the film and an automatic digitalization of the negative into cine dng, that would justify the price,. But i know that is not the case, i think
This for true filmmaker with budgets you totally lost me on crop factor you dont worry about crop factor when you use c mount was literally made for 8mm. film moment is extremely important and requires precise machineing to do thats expensive
Keep in mind that 90% of 8mm cameras dont have cristal sync aka it doesn't sync with sound this makes it perfect for indie producers.
If it does well it might drop in price.
I have to say, anyone who thinks this should be a cheap camera clearly doesn’t get the target audience. If this camera was $500 I seriously doubt it would move more units in any significant way. Because the film and development is so costly no one is using this unless they really need it. Which means this a rental. It’s a rental and you shoot like 5 mags for your Wonder Years / Succession show open style motif and you’re done. So it will make sense for rental houses to own it and not operators. There’s No way anyone except for super nerd users are going to take this on vacation or use this for their Insta or try to shoot any substantial amount of a film on. So it’s a niche product for niche use and no surprise that it’s going to sell for a niche price.
At $750 with the promised cloud and development features, might of bought it as a splurge self-gift.. At this price, made of plastic, with outdated ports almost a decade later… forgot this camera exists
Hipster bait cash grab.
5k more than what they originally said...why would you buy this over a used RED..an Alexa..any other camera WTF
Thank you Brother. I was on the list and received a notification from B&H saying, “As an early enlistee you’re receiving this email letting you know that your camera is ready for order. Failure to do so before Wednesday 19th June, (two days from now) will result in you losing your spot!”
After seeing this review, you’ve just saved me $5,500!!
Thanks again for the dose of reality.
Omg literally in the same exact boat! Got my email this morning! Was thinking I would buy to test and return if it’s not great but it feels like it wouldn’t even be worth the test 😅
Ironically Kodak brought still photography to the masses by selling a cheap camera, called the Brownie, and they made the money off of the film and develop.
With that price I would guess they want to go out of business again. Also if they are processing super 8 again people will just use old cameras. Much cheaper.
The problem with suggesting that Kodak should have gone with the printer business model here is that the 8 mm film is already not cheap.
I have original Canon AF 310 XL still in the box with all the attachments and goodies I'm willing to let it go for at least $2,500
I was really excited for this, and I thought it was going to be around $800. But, holy moly and a tea cup, if anyone actually pays $5.5k for it in this economy they should be ashamed of themselves.
Kodak and it’s logic milking cows. “Let’s milk film hipsters like a nice cow” 😂😂😂😂 first you pay 5.5k € then you pay 40€ for each cassette 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. As I professional film photographer I found this super 8 to be hilarious. It could be a thing if this camera cost 399-499€.
You're right. I thought there was a typo in the story, specifically the position of the decimal point in the pricing.
Popular video editing software can make any movie look like it was filmed in super 8. For free.
A simple point and shoot or slr film camera would do so much better sales and/or pr wise. It’ll be hard to compete with the current digital powerhouses. It’s sad that if this fails they spent another lump of r&d without gaining anything from it. I hope they can keep afloat and keep moving ahead with new products if this doesn’t take off.
i mean they could release an affordable version of this... i really want to get into 8mm but its too expensivw
I'd buy it if it is like 5,495 ... yen. Looks like a 5,495 yen camera.
Kodak and Polaroid: dinosaur capitalism ....
I mean, this technology is commercially dead. I can see prices coming down if things like this become increasingly popular and profitable enough to scale up, but this is just the pricing of early adopter tech. I can't imagine that making this thing was cheap, and I can't imagine that it will be able to sell enough to be profitable at all. This is the dilemma with retro tech in general. Although I agree, MicroUSB is unacceptable and at this price point they really should have just shot for 16mm film.
I said it in another comment but I'll reiterate here... 8 years of development. That's crazy. As bad as the price is, I hope Kodak doesn't get too beat up and does release something cheaper in the future.
@@DOPJoshDiaz I don't understand Kodak, genuinely. It's like they hate money LMAO. I feel like it would have made a lot more sense if they made a Digital 8mm camera that emulated film. They honestly probably coulda had it made for a lot cheaper considering the logistics of RND with film are really expensive at the moment compared to sensors, of which they were once at the forefront of developing back in the late 90s and early 2000s. Hipsters would have gone crazy for it, hell even the gen public. They could have even gone for the Fuji market, doing film simulations of somesort. But instead they invested into tech that is already niche even among the film community and has hundreds of old alternatives.
Even a nice, simple film SLR that they could have sold for $500-1000 would have made more sense to develop profit wise.
I like to vote with my money... problem is, I already voted for rent!
Sometimes I think things like this are only really priced for people who have money to burn, who want to show off that they've got money to burn in a really niche way! 🤔
For almost the same price you could have a RED Komodo smh
If Kodak went the route of the Instax cameras, with the bubbly, matte white plastic aesthetic for the camera, and marketed to tiktok polaroid crowd they would have a hit
This camera is for pros and people who own/buy leicas!
Let's see... in 1975 it cost $5 bucks to buy, process and print 36 exposures of tri-x film. Also, in 1975 it cost $5 bucks to fill the gas tank of a '62 Chrysler and still have money to go to McDonalds for a Big Mac, fries and a coke. It cost you $151 bucks to buy a 16mm magazine camera Bell and Howell produced in 1934. Anyone here want to do the math and then bitch about the cost of a camera that is both analog and digital? Any here looked at the price of a Arri camera lately? If you are going to be in film, quit complaining and pony up.
My only beef with Eastman's camera isn't the camera. It's that damned cartridge and its flakey pressure plate. If these guys had built the camera around an entirely new system passing the film through a proper gate... I'd still not buy one cause I'm poor but still... then they'd have something.
I'll wait until they drop it the 2 month later those will be worth nothing
Leicina special is way superior and cost around 1000.
The micro USB 😂😂😂
Disconnected from reality is right. Even ignoring the cost of this camera, the price of super8 film seems prohibitive for people outside of an extremely narrow niche of people shooting video on film.
I hear orders are shipping April 1.
I wouldn't be surprised. B&H has the camera on their website, but it's not ready for pre-order.
If the Bronze Pikachu No. 3 Trainer Trophy Pokemon card can be sold for $300,000...well
Lomography should enter the super 8 market, making it more accessible for the average consumer, potentially reaching a sub $300 mark.
I’m still not entirely sure why it’s priced like this. An Arriflex isn’t that much more expensive an will be an absolutely much more enticing experience. Kodak keeps fumbling the opportunity to hit the consumer/prosumer market. The film community is slowly rebuilding and the only people taking advantage are third parties and now surprisingly Ilford’s parent company Harman is going into color film. Kodak sells film well, but they need to invest in platforms… that are AFFORDABLE.
Sure, you can get a used Arriflex for around $5k. Then you have to buy all the film to fill a 400ft mag or two, manually thread it all through in a darkened room after you've meticulously cleaned the gate, manually expose everything etc, plus the additional development costs. Hardly the spontaneity and portability that Super 8 offers. Two totally different types of market and user. When you account for inflation, $5k is close to what a new Super 8 camera cost people back in its heyday. If you took the Arriflex that you mention, and imagine a company making a newly designed one, you can bet it would be sold for $50k or more. Even a used S16 Arri 416 still goes for nearly $80k. If you're one of the many wedding people who are shooting Super 8 weddings now, the $5k price tag for the new Kodak camera will make its money back in a couple of jobs, and you have the reassurance that it'll be a reliable camera. Something you can't guarantee with a vintage camera.
@@simonwyndham you could also get a beaulieu 4008 for 10x less and equip it with a video tap. that camera has lasted for 60 years and may never go obsolete, I doubt this one will last that long.
Why? Just why did Kodak produce such a product? It looks crap, the thinking behind it is crap and the price is crap. 8mm had it's time and it's not now. It looks like a toy from a Christmas cracker. The sort of present you really don't want.
You more or less by 5 iPhones for the price of this. For the same price an outstanding cinema setup either fill frame or MFT.
'I want to get the film look that is so associated with 8mm' - Total BS! The finished film looks crap and always did.
This appeals to those UA-cam 'influencers' who have the product given to them by Kodak who can then rave about it so poor film students fall for it. Don't.
Kodak were world leaders in film but they did not move with the times, I shot 100's of rolls of their 35mm/ 120 / 5x4 (sheets) film and I regarded them as the best at the time.
It's for pros and rental houses surely? It seems designed to fit in a workflow where you'd be using it alongside Red or Arri digital cameras. Super8 B-roll?
🤔(thinks to self) hmmm...
If they had released it for 549, it'd be worth it-- but 5.5k? absolutely not
This camera would be really inticing at $549!
Surely, you can just buy an older secondhand Super8 camera from the 70s or 80s that's still in excellent usable condition and use that with the new Kodak Super8 cartridges? I might give that a shot, especially since they'll digitize the film as part of developing it.
You can get an Arri SR3 or a Bolex EBM with a full set of decent prime glass for $5K~!
You can get a second hand Arriflex SR camera for close to $6K. That is a sync-sound capable, production-ready, workhorse 16mm film camera for around the same price as an 8mm hipster toy.
It’s literally the dumbest thing I’ve seen..
I give it 6 months and the biggest YT’ers will be saying “best camera of 2024”… haha 😂
All of the sample video that was shot on this camera looks absolutely terrible. If someone really wants to shoot on film then they should pick up a used 16 mm Bolex and get better results. Lots of people said they were interested in this camera but at this price I doubt that many will buy them. The 3 or 4 minute record time is also poor. This will be a massive flop.
There more advanced super 8mm cameras from the 80s with stabilisers and even black and white liveview using mini CRT for 50 bucks on eBay, you rather buy those than this sh**
For the price they should offer you 1 hour of free film development.
Thanks for this. I shoot super 8 and would LOVE to have a NEW camera. It's tough trying to keep old cameras in working order. But $5,500 is too much for a fairly simple camera.
What camera do you have? I still use my Rollei SL83 thank you very much and as in love with it now like I was when I first got it all those years back.
@@Headintodreams I am glad to hear that you are happy with your Rollei. I have 3 working cameras, but my main one is a Canon Auto Zoom 814. It has a few problems though and I am increasing relying on my Chinon 213PXL; it never fails me.
When I first heard Kodak was making a Super 8 I was very excited. Then I heard the price and was like🤨🤔😳🤬 wait, what? They are asking how much?!!!!
I couldn’t agree with you more. Whoever is in charge of this failure of a project at Kodak is a moron. I’ve been following this camera since they first threatened to release it years and years ago. Since then it has been Kodak dropping the ball on this camera time and time again..every year price changes, every year they say they will release it and they don’t. Initially, this was a camera that was going to get people back into film and now it is become everything that is not that. It’s interesting they couldn’t follow blackmagics lead and actually come out with great cameras at affordable prices, which help get people into the art form, and yes film is super expensive so not only are you paying through the nose for the camera -You’re gonna be completely broke trying to shoot any of the film that looks ..just OK at best. I’m completely dumbfounded by this, It’s ridiculous and now I’m getting emails saying “sign up before the deadline -Get on the buy list”. Then they ask how soon do you want to buy this? as soon as possible or in three months?. Can anyone say GREEDY Kodak? I hate Kodak for this. The digital Bolex was a way better idea. At this price it would make more sense to put the money towards a used Arri super 16mm. Wtf?
Question. Is reading every single on of the comments reading more than "every one of the comments"
someone once pointed this idiosyncrasy out to me and i can't escape it lmfao
I honestly thought we were never going to see this thing, and then got excited when it showed up. I was concerned about "limited edition" and then frankly just disappointed when I saw the price. Sure some lenses in my 2024 budget cost more than this, but when Pro8mm makes 8mm cinema cameras for less than half the cost, and they're really only missing the digital flippy screen? It's kinda ridiculous.
At this price an independent custom shop could undercut them.
Actually the most cost (and eco) effective means would probably be to restomod old super 8 cams. Which would have the benefit of more nostalgia. Having an actual metal device from the 1960s in your hands.
They know the market is blowing up for film movie cameras seeing a 16mm camera like this brand new would be 10k. Kodak is a head of the curve. The price is right. It’ll sell out just watch.
Being limited edition and the first camera from Kodak in this format, I have no doubt it will sell. I hope they can get the tech price down in the future.
Now I understand why this camera was sent to a film lab that was clearly not competent enough to be reviewing it.
While I was immediately aggravated and stopped watching, I'm sure many newbies will be captivated by the personalities of the people involved and think this camera is great
Let's be realistic here ....we all know that this is a money laundering situation at best allegedly so lol
you can buy an old arri 16mm oe even 35mm camera for the same price
True.
this camera may look cheap. but to me it packs a pretty good party. this puppy could be a game changer for an up and coming small independent film. im sorry im going to grill you. but only because you did not do any research in your video. im serious. i read the pdf and almost 80 % of the tech they added into their camera you left out.. why because it looks low tech? tell me does this camera have hdmi out? yes it does. meaning what you shoot can also be sent to editing. right away, not after the lab. this is FILM afterall . this feature warms my heart it makes me feel i'm on the set of a major motion picture. the fact you can audio in and out separately and into the card is pretty big for a small production. i see this camera or at its tech going forward with some traction
that being said i'm going say one last thing. yes given kodaks behavior in recent years warrants a cautious eye
please do your research
mustache sean
I can only agree with you. Crystal Sync is also something that makes the camera very useful. It also cannot be compared to a DSLR, which is a large-scale production. This is made in a limited edition. Then production becomes expensive. But it is not easy to understand for those who do not know.
Yes, I hate not being a part of the pity party here, but what, exactly, did everyone assume the price to bring digital and film together in one package to be? That Eastman did it just means that Arri will do it at 3X the price. Sorry guys, Sean is right, this thing is every penny worth its price. And for everyone asking why not 16mm, well, the market is saturated with Arri's new off the shelf and they cost the real bucks.
Oh, and by the way, I use the last professional camera Eastman produced for the 16mm format, a Cine Kodak Special ii, that ran out of production in 1961. When it was introduced in 1933 it would cost $5 to $7 grand based on the set-up, today, and no digital, reflex, nothing.
@@svurskasvurska8019 how much glass is available for that?
I'll just use my old Canon XH A1.
I'm buying one.
Let us know what you think!
Fuuuuuuckthat. People wanted this to come back film cam back. Now they're gonna make people not like it again.
Screw it. Get an old Bolex 155 or 160 Macrozoom. Done. Also, 50 feet is 3 min and 20 seconds at 18 fps, and 2 mins 40 seconds at 24 fps. (Maybe Guy Maddin will use this.)
They are absolutely insane to charge this much for "nostalgic" factor alone. I believe Kodak is and has been bleeding to death and this is another example of it. They probably want to attempt to save the company in a final last effort with this joke of a smooth brain move but ironically it will probably be the final straw that broke the camels back.
To be fair, the company is like completely broke. Don't act like this is a surprise. They're riding the nostalgia wave + they need to justify the R&D. If we're lucky, there might be a cheaper V2 once they know it's viable. Still sucks but that just seems to be the M.O. for products nowadays. Won't be buying it obviously. Hope it does well for them bc I like their film. They don't seem to be in a position to screw around so I'm not inclined to think this is a malevolent choice.
This reminds me of when sigma came out with the SD1 and priced it at $9,000 and then pulled the camera after a year of barely selling any units. Then came out with a rerelease and called it SD1 Merrill and priced it $2,999. It was still to expensive for what they were offering. Maybe the kodak 8mm V2 might be $1,199 if it ever happens. I wouldn't pay no more than $399 for it.
I think there’s something to be said for the video enhancements. Being able to see a semi accurate digital read out of what is going to go onto your film is pretty dope. I see a lot of these cameras from their original era going in the hundreds, and I think somewhere in the 1000s might be fair.
Actually, that is incorrect. In fact, the motion picture division is the thing that ultimately saved them. Now, admittedly, this was an expensive boondoggle to be certain, but Kodak is not going to disappear from the face of the planet because of it.
I agree I’m 72 love to try 8mm again but price ridiculous
I was really into film photography back then and I was really happy to hear about that camera, but it's freaking expensive for what is a camera that shoots nostalgia quality videos.
700$ is okay, I would pay that much for some nostalgia videos, but this is expensive as fuck.
The Leica M11 sells for $9000, and their M6 film camera re-make retails for $5700. As a special edition, limited quantity item, Kodak’s new S8 camera isn’t completely out of line with niche still film offerings.
BTW, 35mm movie film was not a consumer format. And movie cameras did eventually get video assist, the invention of which is usually credited to actor Jerry Lewis, so this is not the first movie camera to have a screen.
Build quality of leica cameras and this plastic Kodak thing are miles apart. Leica builds high quality cameras for a price.
A Leica M6 is built extremely well, that thing is a tank. Yes the Leica is excessively expensive but at least it justifies its cost. Not to mention 35mm film is a professional film stock and can be used in that sense, there are wedding photographers out there shooting on Leica film cameras. Super 8 is a budget home video format and excluding novelty shooting for stylised videos like music videos, it doesn't have a utility in the professional world, to which is priced at. I mean its made of plastic, likely isn't weather sealed in anyway, charges with a bloody usb-b slot. It's a joke. It would be justifiable at $1000 as a niche product but $5495, nah.
@@jockslifeatliftvideoproduc8528 I know a thing or two about Leicas, I have six. Maybe I should have used my Contax 645 as an example; it has a polycarbonate/plastic body as do the pricey Mamiya 7s, both of them medium format film cameras that go for a fair chunk of change, and they're used. Personally, I don't like S8 enough to put out this kind of cash for new machine in that format, but I'm sure there will be quite a few who'll jump on this. And the majority who won't. Me, I'll stick to my 16mm Bolex Rex-3 and Eclair.