jorepuusa: Hard to believe those hatefull comments against analog method.-If analog is horrified? how come The Andalusian dog by Dali or Charlie Chaplin movies etc. are so important movies in the world. The technical quality in those masterpieces is not like digital nowadays .... but visual quality is not the same thing as technical quality.-Photographers are divided. Some take pictures and some have cameras as a hobby.
I was among the first to tackle digital photography fifteen years ago. But I never gave up film photography. On the contrary I bought reasonably priced medium format gear. Today, those who gave up or never knew film photography, feel excluded in a sense. And that makes them angry and irrational.
timo: I have plenty of old Super 8 movies.
Who on Earth would want this?
Gimmick for under-occupied hipsters.
English is not my mother tongue so I do not know what hipsters are. The Urban Dictionary says 'men and women typically in their 20's and 30's that value independent thinking'. I can't see how one wouldn't value independent thinking but I do see how it's possible to avoid the first part of the definition, which I do pretty well.By the way, if I were not over-occupied, I would devote much more time to analog photography.And if I were rich I would buy Kodak Super 8 camera. Or perhaps I should just save money.
Howard: 2 1/2 minutes for $50-75 per cartridge with less than the picture quality of a modern toy, and audio on a separate card?? This is hilarious. At least the remaining people at Kodak have a good sense of humor!
This is for people who don't like toys, modern or not, while having a good sense of humor. Surely most of us here.
tbcass: Who will buy this? I grew up when 8mm and super 8 were what families used to capture memories. The video quality was horrid, worse even than VHS. This nostalgia craze is going way too far.
Haven't you ever bought a photographic item that was not absolutely necessary to your photography?
Matija Prajo: "At 24 fps users will get two and half minutes of movie, and the cartridges take just a couple of seconds to exchange."
"The film should cost between $50 to $75 per cartridge"
So...for 4 hours of wedding coverage, I would need...hm...96 catridges costing me 4800$ :)
Good suggestion. Next time I shoot a wedding I will shoot continuously for four hours. So I'll get all decisive moments.
RJ46: Seems very expensive, probably a niche product intended for rich hipsters only. The fact that it's so expensive will make it a status symbol for them.
But for me, I'd rather just have a Super 8 creative art filter on a cheap P&S camera that can make everything look like it was recorded in the 1960s. If Kodak had any sense, it would copy how Fujifilm does the film simulation modes and put a Super 8 1960s simulation mode on all it's P&S cameras.
Expensive? Have you seen the prices of the latest lenses for digital photography?
Mister J: Yikes, I hope the picture quality is better than I got from my last Super-8 camera, a top of the line Canon 814XL
These days, my phone (iPhone always in my pocket) shoots top quality visuals and acceptable audio. And my Panasonic shoots 4k video if I need it.
That's without even thinking about the aggro and cost of processing, or the difficulty of editing effectively.
Still, maybe there's a retro niche with enough buyers with interest that's as deep as their pockets.
Your iPhone is always in your pocket. This is interesting. What are the other items in your pocket?
VENTURE-STAR: Apparently, this thread is filled with disinformation and it would seem that many of us don't understand what we are talking about.
I can actually trace my own interest back to Standard 8, which was exciting stuff to work with in the days of really awful B&W TV. Super 8, which I've also used by the thousands of feet is long past retirement. Some budding film makers may think they can mimic the intro to Californication or produce hot, disjointed footage for pop videos that will win awards, but compared to average cameraphone footage shot by someone who really knows what they doing, it generally looks poor. This kind of "we know best" attitude also surfaces with enthusiasts who have to hang on to vinyl discs with their endless assorted problems, drink real ale and drive classic cars. It's all very pretentious BS.
Film has little to offer these days and even parts of Mad Max Fury Road were recorded using humble Canon EOS 5Ds. Quality rules folks, not nonsense.
Am I pretentious if I like analog photography? In that case perhaps I should give up Latin, mathematics and physics to be a little less pretentious.
Greynerd: This super 8 is like people buying vinyl records in this modern age. You just cannot imagine it happening.
Why would this age be more modern than any other age?
AlanG: I hope they also bring back dye transfer soon.
I'm quite a big fan of the Sony Alpha system (and own an Alpha 55) but this body makes no sense to me.Which professional would be jumping on a Sony Alpha FF body just reviewing the line of FF compatible glasses (either from Sony or Tamron or Sigma). There is only a very few as most of those lenses has been designed for APS-C bodies. Why should I limit myself?Are there any plans / rumors for more lenses in the A-mount domain?regards
Please explain what you can't shoot with Sony compatible FF lenses. Thanks in advance.
Marty4650: If film was so great then we'd all be shooting it today, and Kodak would be thriving. I find it ironic that the nostalgia buffs have to come onto a site named "Digital Photography Review" in order to whine about the fact that most people prefer to use digital cameras.
This makes about as much sense as going onto a sports car website and whining about "how horses were better than cars."
Neither format is better. Each has advantages and disadvantages. (In the case of film.... considerable disadvantages). I respect those who still like using the more costly and inconvenient format, but that will not change the fact that the market for film and paper has almost disappeared.
Enough with the nostalgia crap.
The market has spoken. Get over it.
It would be a good thing if those who are not interested in film could leave alone those who are. They use digital cameras only, they think it's much better than film, they will never use film again or they have never used film. Why do they bother themselves about film?
King Penguin: From an environmental 'green' point of view we should be happy with the demise of film. Sad for Kodak for sure but it had the chance to change but unlike Fuji which faced the same issue, Kodak muffed it.
Sorry guys.......but that's the truth, they had their chance and muffed it!
It's not sad for Kodak. It's sad for those who use film. And from an environmental green point of view we could also get rid of cars and of most other things.
57even: OK I'm not from the US, but Kodak has not had the market significance outside the US that is has domestically. It's demise will cause hardly a ripple in Europe. A handful will mourn the passing of TriX but that's about it.
Perhaps that's the root of the problem. They have an impressive technology portfolio but never managed to monetise any of it. Poor management? Partly, but also a bunch of shareholders and creditors who were unwilling to accept the medium term financial hit of the major restructuring required.
Welcome to short termist ecomonomics. It killed more companies than Kodak.
Portra films are used worldwide. And are recent technology. But, yes, I acknowledge that digital enabled any idiot to take good family pictures and occasionally good pictures.
Nikonworks: My D700 and D7000 and D300 and D5000 and Samsung TL500 can do the same thing.
Just do it.
MrFlash: Just when you think that Fuji (and others) may drag Leica kicking and screaming into the 21st century, they resist temptation and take a giant leap back toward the 60's.
Very few people will be willing to photograph exclusively in B&W, so it's a good thing that Leica bodies are priced so that most people can just buy two. One for color, one for B&W. Makes perfect since to me.
jmmgarza: Now... a high-quality black ink only large-format ink jet printer.
... and a high-quality monochrome computer screen.
ljmac: These images simply aren't aesthetically pleasing, let alone accurate. The lack of colour overemphasises certain unattractive elements (e.g. bloodshot eyes), while destroying a lot of detail in complex areas of the scene, which needs colour to resolve properly. It seems that in practice converting colour to monochrome in accordance with the needs of the specific image produces far better results - or even better, not converting it to monochrome at all.
Saying that colour is superior to monochrome doesn't make any sense. It's different, that's all.
Kummik: Image quality might be awesome, but small sensor still has it's limitations. Achieveing a shallow DoF with the SD1 is much more difficult and it can't really be compared to 645D or even a FF sensor in that respect. I'm not familiar with the Foveon technology, but I haven't seen any examples how it performs with higher ISO, so not sure how it compares in terms of noise.
If you want a shallow depth of field in low light, the SD1 is not for you. It's been known for years, and written everywhere, that the Sigma cameras are not the best for available light. But in daylight or under controlled lighting, they are fantastic, the more so if you DON'T want a shallow depth of field.
forpetessake: The pixel resolution and spatial transfer (MTF) are great, no one argues, but that is way too little to compete with similarly prices cameras. Colors are bad, noise is bad, handling is bad ... Foveon sensor technology is interesting, but Sigma has never achieved anything outstanding with that and unlikely will.
So you handled one?