A NEW super-8 cam might be on the market.

[wado1942]

The lack of reflex viewfinder is a serious turnoff and in fact I'd rather shoot super-8 than a non-reflex super-16 cam. But yeah, it only takes 25 lunes to make this happen. Actually, I can get an Auricon 16mm cam with a paralax viewfinder for far less than this super-16 camera so I'd probably go that way before any other. At least with an Auricon I can have time code on the camera neg.

[reflex]

Where's reflex? Retrothing is his... I bet he could tell us something about this camera.

reflex is building a new house/office so he's been a tad distracted lately. ;)

Nigel is right, we discussed the DS8 A-Cam several months ago. I posted on Retro Thing in an attempt to raise its profile. It worked: The piece has been picked up by mainstream sites such as c|net, Engadget, and OhGizmo (along with the fantastic OnSuper8.org).

As Angus astutely observed, a DS8 version of the A-Cam is possible because it would only require a modified pulldown mechanism, a smaller film gate aperture and recentered lens. On the other hand, a Super 8 cartridge model would require a completely new mechanical design. It wouldn't be worth the financial risk.

€4200 is an excellent price for this camera, but it highlights the disconnect with consumer expectations: we now expect cameras to be unreasonably cheap because of second-hand bargains. New short-run devices cannot be sold at the mass-market prices we've come to expect. There will be no new $295 Super 8 cameras in the future.

For comparison: Marriot reports that the list price of a Beaulieu 4008 ZM was £500 in 1970. According to this historic inflation calculator, that's equivalent to £4635 ($9133) in 2001 money. Precision optomechanical devices are expensive.

[marc]

In a way, you sort of made the same point that I was making. We are used to bargains when it comes to Super 8 cameras. And on ones that have reflex viewfinders. More important than whether or not the cost of this new camera is justified by today's dollar value, I think that people should ask themselve if they really want to spend that much on a Super 8 camera. It seems that for nearly the same price and with competitively priced film stocks and the same or less amount of work involved in loading the camera, you can get the 16mm version.
From my own personal perspective, Super 8 definitely has it's charm, but only as a cartridge loading system on highly automated, compact cameras that have reflex viewfinders.

[mattias]

Actually, I can get an Auricon 16mm cam with a paralax viewfinder for far less than this super-16 camera

you're missing the point. the second you try to mount that auricon on a skydiving helmet or whatever i'm sure you'll see it. ;-) the reason it was designed was that there weren't enough cheap, reliable, crystal synced, easily maintained and available super 16 cameras for the professional crowd. if that's not important you simply should look elsewhere, as you have.

/matt

[reflex]

the second you try to mount that auricon on a skydiving helmet or whatever i'm sure you'll see it. ;-)

Mount the Auricon on your helmet upside down. That way the image will be correctly oriented as you plunge headfirst to earth. :roll:

You're right about "the professional crowd." This camera meets resistance on this board because most amateurs don't have €5000 to throw at a hobby.

From a professional perspective, it's inexpensive and would be extremely valuable for "impossible" POV shots in commercials and TV productions. I'd love to bolt one onto a cockpit camera mount and take it ridge soaring in the mountains.

[wado1942]

That's pretty funny. Yeah Auricons are pretty heavy. So are Arris for how small they are (and loud). Good point.