FINALLY - Kodak Super 8 camera!

[Tyler Purcell]

15 minutes ago, Joerg Polzfusz said:

When you think that Super8 automatically results in bad images, then why are you participating in this thread at all?

I don't "think" it automatically results in bad images, I know. 

BIG difference. 

To the rest of your question, why do you care? I shoot a lot of super 8, but I'm ok accepting it's a shit format. 

[Scott Bullock]

hat objective criteria you used to draw that 

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I don't "think" it automatically results in bad images, I know.  

I'm curious what objective criteria you used to draw that conclusion.

[Kevin Roy]

I've shot some beautiful Super 8 and I think it has some really special qualities. So glad Kodak has made this important investment for artists and students of the medium who really want to explore the process of working with film. In the hands of the right filmmakers, I think we can expect to see some really interesting and inspiring work that will further propel new interest in film. From my conversations with a few folks close to its development, there's definitely a few niche areas they are/were focusing on. Kudos to Kodak and all those talented and dedicated people for doing their very best to bring us this incredible camera. I'm looking forward to unboxing one and testing it out, asap. 

[Shane C Collins]

I've shot a lot of Super 8 over the years, and have come to the conclusion there's two important things that can make or break Super 8. The camera's lens, and the projector's lens if you're watching your films this way. The last 5 or so carts of Ektachrome 7294 I've shot have all come out beautiful, and sharp. If you haven't seen Ektachrome on a good quality projector with a good lens your missing out. My go to camera these days is the underrated Elmo Super 110. This camera produces some beautiful images. The projector I am using is the classic Eumig Mark S 709 using a Eumig Suprovar 1.0 zoom lens. No digital transfer I've ever seen online comes close to the original images as seen on a projector. My Super 8 home movies look high quality this way. However I do keep the projected image smaller 3 feet by 3 feet on the silver screen I am using. This further enhances the Super 8 image. If you blow Super 8 up too big it begins to lose its quality. I also find if I keep my subjects close to medium while filming, that helps with sharper images on screen. Super 8 is really a close format and not meant for landscapes. So if you haven't  projected color reversal on a good classic projector your missing out for sure!

Edited December 1, 2023 by Shane C Collins

[Tyler Purcell]

16 hours ago, Scott Bullock said:

I'm curious what objective criteria you used to draw that conclusion.

By comparing the final files to 16mm and 35mm? 

It's impossible to get a crisp image because the system uses a plastic pressure plate. So flange distance constantly varies. The bigger cameras like the Beaulieu series with C mount lenses, they struggle to maintain flange distance. Every lens is collimated slightly different and the mounts are not locked to the gate at all, so as the cameras get older, the lens mount itself slowly starts to move away from the gate. It doesn't take long to have the flange distance off. 

The film is poorly made as well, the perforation pulses and even though the registration is based on the side rail, that too changes dramatically camera to camera. There is a spring loaded side rail which is designed to hold the film and that wears, so the lateral registration falls apart over time. 

The cameras don't run at any consistent speed, so many have flickering issues. The automatic ISO controls don't work on modern stock well, so you're running manual exposure always. The lenses on the build in lensed cameras are poor, even tho there are some "fast" lenses, it's all a joke because there is a beam splitter in the way, so they're never THAT fast. Plus the built in focus aids, never work right. There is no actual ground glass. Even in the fancy mirror shutter Beaulieu's, have poor viewfinders. I never got that, it makes no sense. 

So no, they really never made any good cameras, even the ones which appear to be better, they're really all just crap. 

Don't get me started about the projectors, whooo eeeee such junk. 

Nobody ever really tried to make the format any good. Logmar did with their first iteration which pulled the film out of the cartridge and ran it around a sprocket drive and actual gate with pressure plate and hard C mount. It worked, but it's very expensive and it's not the best design sadly. The images out of the Logmar, scanned properly and with good glass, look ok. So we know it's not necessarily the film of course, it's just the cartridge, camera and projector tech which fails the format. 

[Giray Izcan]

This camera could be used to different potentials in my opinion, but without a 200ft magazine, no... you're still only bound to 50ft cartridges, which is not enough film to shoot dialogue scenes for the most part, so 24fps crystal sync to me is sort of a moot point. Nearly 6k in price, you'd be better off buying an NPR or an ACL for the same price or cheaper with crystal sync motors and 400ft magazines. At least, a new filmmaker can grow into it and experiment with it a lot more, printing, shoot shorts, etc... 

[Giray Izcan]

7 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

By comparing the final files to 16mm and 35mm? 

It's impossible to get a crisp image because the system uses a plastic pressure plate. So flange distance constantly varies. The bigger cameras like the Beaulieu series with C mount lenses, they struggle to maintain flange distance. Every lens is collimated slightly different and the mounts are not locked to the gate at all, so as the cameras get older, the lens mount itself slowly starts to move away from the gate. It doesn't take long to have the flange distance off. 

The film is poorly made as well, the perforation pulses and even though the registration is based on the side rail, that too changes dramatically camera to camera. There is a spring loaded side rail which is designed to hold the film and that wears, so the lateral registration falls apart over time. 

The cameras don't run at any consistent speed, so many have flickering issues. The automatic ISO controls don't work on modern stock well, so you're running manual exposure always. The lenses on the build in lensed cameras are poor, even tho there are some "fast" lenses, it's all a joke because there is a beam splitter in the way, so they're never THAT fast. Plus the built in focus aids, never work right. There is no actual ground glass. Even in the fancy mirror shutter Beaulieu's, have poor viewfinders. I never got that, it makes no sense. 

So no, they really never made any good cameras, even the ones which appear to be better, they're really all just crap. 

Don't get me started about the projectors, whooo eeeee such junk. 

Nobody ever really tried to make the format any good. Logmar did with their first iteration which pulled the film out of the cartridge and ran it around a sprocket drive and actual gate with pressure plate and hard C mount. It worked, but it's very expensive and it's not the best design sadly. The images out of the Logmar, scanned properly and with good glass, look ok. So we know it's not necessarily the film of course, it's just the cartridge, camera and projector tech which fails the format. 

Logmar is the best s8 camera I have ever seen I think, but even then, it looks like a bad 16mm at best.. if you want to spend 10-15k... at that price, you'd be getting an sr2 s16 with hd tap or I just saw an sr3 advanced kit for 17k... or Aaton... it doesn't make any sense. 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Giray Izcan

[Tyler Purcell]

45 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Logmar is the best s8 camera I have ever seen I think, but even then, it looks like a bad 16mm at best.. if you want to spend 10-15k... at that price, you'd be getting an sr2 s16 with hd tap or I just saw an sr3 advanced kit for 17k... or Aaton... it doesn't make any sense. 

Exactly and everyone is so focused on "today" but film prices are going to skyrocket in the next two or three years. People are going to be selling their cameras like crazy, trying to get back their investment as they can't afford to shoot film anymore. 

Kodak is going to weed us consumers out of the business shortly. It's far better to just make film for the pro's who can afford it. 

 

[Shane C Collins]

52 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

By comparing the final files to 16mm and 35mm? 

It's impossible to get a crisp image because the system uses a plastic pressure plate. So flange distance constantly varies. The bigger cameras like the Beaulieu series with C mount lenses, they struggle to maintain flange distance. Every lens is collimated slightly different and the mounts are not locked to the gate at all, so as the cameras get older, the lens mount itself slowly starts to move away from the gate. It doesn't take long to have the flange distance off. 

The film is poorly made as well, the perforation pulses and even though the registration is based on the side rail, that too changes dramatically camera to camera. There is a spring loaded side rail which is designed to hold the film and that wears, so the lateral registration falls apart over time. 

The cameras don't run at any consistent speed, so many have flickering issues. The automatic ISO controls don't work on modern stock well, so you're running manual exposure always. The lenses on the build in lensed cameras are poor, even tho there are some "fast" lenses, it's all a joke because there is a beam splitter in the way, so they're never THAT fast. Plus the built in focus aids, never work right. There is no actual ground glass. Even in the fancy mirror shutter Beaulieu's, have poor viewfinders. I never got that, it makes no sense. 

So no, they really never made any good cameras, even the ones which appear to be better, they're really all just crap. 

Don't get me started about the projectors, whooo eeeee such junk. 

Nobody ever really tried to make the format any good. Logmar did with their first iteration which pulled the film out of the cartridge and ran it around a sprocket drive and actual gate with pressure plate and hard C mount. It worked, but it's very expensive and it's not the best design sadly. The images out of the Logmar, scanned properly and with good glass, look ok. So we know it's not necessarily the film of course, it's just the cartridge, camera and projector tech which fails the format. 

Well all I can say is you must be using junk cameras, and projectors because that has not been my experiences at all. I would not consider the Elmo Super 110 junk far from it. Nor would I say my Eumig projector was junk. Built from solid metal, and with precise gates, and removable sprockets for Standard 8 and Super 8. Dude you really are beating up on a format that is a joy to use, and view! I'm only stating my experience with it! Super 8 has lots of potential you just have to know what your doing to get good results. It sounds like your not using the format correctly. I honestly never heard anyone beat up on it as much as you sorry dude! It's not perfect but it's magical when you keep things in perspective. Super 8 was never intended to compete with 16mm or 35mm. But many of us love it for it's dreamy quality, and vintage look. 

[Giray Izcan]

For instance, I have an NPR.. it was converted to s16 with pl mount with added ground glass insert tabs for different aspect ratios, custom small profile crystal sync motor, all 4 magazines were just maintained amd overhauled at Visual Products and with AZ Spectrum flickerfree HD tap comes up to roughly 6k.. but at least it is completely overhauled and modernized professional level s16 camera.. I'm only telling to put things in perspective.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Giray Izcan

[Giray Izcan]

4 minutes ago, Shane C Collins said:

Well all I can say is you must be using junk cameras, and projectors because that has not been my experiences at all. I would not consider the Elmo Super 110 junk far from it. Nor would I say my Eumig projector was junk. Built from solid metal, and with precise gates, and removable sprockets for Standard 8 and Super 8. Dude you really are beating up on a format that is a joy to use, and view! I'm only stating my experience with it! Super 8 has lots of potential you just have to know what your doing to get good results. It sounds like your not using the format correctly. I honestly never heard anyone beat up on it as much as you sorry dude! It's not perfect but it's magical when you keep things in perspective. Super 8 was never intended to compete with 16mm or 35mm. But many of us love it for it's dreamy quality, and vintage look. 

I shoot on Minolta xl84 at 2.8 indoors and t/4-8 outdoors with pleasing image that is plenty sharp with good contrast..I bought it for 100, which should have been more like 250-400. I am going to be shooting a small short that is intended to test the format (7213) in controlled situations. I look forward to it. 

[Shane C Collins]

1 minute ago, Giray Izcan said:

I shoot on Minolta xl84 at 2.8 indoors and t/4-8 outdoors with pleasing image that is plenty sharp with good contrast..I bought it for 100, which should have been more like 250-400. I am going to be shooting a small short that is intended to test the format (7213) in controlled situations. I look forward to it. 

That's a very nice camera! I have a Minolta Autopak 8 D6 that I use from time to time. The Rokkor lens is very sharp with nice contrast. 

[Giray Izcan]

11 minutes ago, Shane C Collins said:

Well all I can say is you must be using junk cameras, and projectors because that has not been my experiences at all. I would not consider the Elmo Super 110 junk far from it. Nor would I say my Eumig projector was junk. Built from solid metal, and with precise gates, and removable sprockets for Standard 8 and Super 8. Dude you really are beating up on a format that is a joy to use, and view! I'm only stating my experience with it! Super 8 has lots of potential you just have to know what your doing to get good results. It sounds like your not using the format correctly. I honestly never heard anyone beat up on it as much as you sorry dude! It's not perfect but it's magical when you keep things in perspective. Super 8 was never intended to compete with 16mm or 35mm. But many of us love it for it's dreamy quality, and vintage look. 

I was actually interested in Elmo as I know they have a great lens. If I am not mistaken, that camera has 180 degree shutter angle at 24fps right? The narrow shutter angle is what I don't like about s8 cameras, in particular,  Beaulieus.. you lose a stop with that shutter angle.. I wish they were just standard 180..

[Scott Bullock]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

By comparing the final files to 16mm and 35mm?

So, you're saying that Super 8 looks objectively "bad" because it doesn't look like 16mm and 35mm? I don't think anyone disagrees, so that seems like a weird standard to hold S8 to when it was never designed to supplant either of those formats, as I'm sure you know.

I don't disagree with all of the inherent limitations of the Super 8 format you mentioned in your response. These are well known and factors that must be considered when deciding whether to use the format or not. However, if one works within those limitations and doesn't expect to achieve the same results that can be derived using larger gauges, Super 8 can still render fantastic results.

I truly appreciate your input and am not all attempting to be snide, but you can't buy a Camaro and then complain that it's not a Corvette. All that will do is lead to disappointment. It's better to accept the Camaro for what it is and move on. Or, just buy the Corvette. 

[Scott Bullock]

1 hour ago, Giray Izcan said:

For instance, I have an NPR.. it was converted to s16 with pl mount with added ground glass insert tabs for different aspect ratios, custom small profile crystal sync motor, all 4 magazines were just maintained amd overhauled at Visual Products and with AZ Spectrum flickerfree HD tap comes up to roughly 6k.. but at least it is completely overhauled and modernized professional level s16 camera.. I'm only telling to put things in perspective.

That's a nice setup. I had an NPR converted to S16 by George at Optical Electro House before he retired. It had an AZ Spectrum video tap also. I ended up selling it and bought an ACL II. Kinda wish I still had it as it was a trouble-free camera the entire time I owned it.

In reading your other posts, I hope you're not setting yourself up for disappointment with your Super 8 short, but if you are expecting Super 8 to give the same or comparable results to your NPR, I fear you're heading down that road.

I'm with you on the price of the Kodak camera though. I've tried to find a way to justify that price because I really enjoy Super 8 a lot. Like, a lot a lot. However, I just can't do it. I agree that that sort of money would be much better spent on a rig like you've described or, if one wanted to really pursue Super 8, then to buy a high end, freshly serviced camera and spend the rest on film, processing and transfer. But then, it seems anyone who can afford this camera may not be concerned about film costs.

[Shane C Collins]

1 hour ago, Giray Izcan said:

I was actually interested in Elmo as I know they have a great lens. If I am not mistaken, that camera has 180 degree shutter angle at 24fps right? The narrow shutter angle is what I don't like about s8 cameras, in particular,  Beaulieus.. you lose a stop with that shutter angle.. I wish they were just standard 180..

I'm not sure of the shutter angle for this Elmo model. I always open up one full stop when shooting modern Ektachrome with this camera. The results projected are fantastic! This stock needs a bit more exposure to look it's best. It really becomes much sharper with better contrast as well. I do also apply a ND filter when allowing more light to hit the film. This approach works well with the Elmo Super 110. 

[Tyler Purcell]

41 minutes ago, Shane C Collins said:

Well all I can say is you must be using junk cameras,

Currently I own and have shot with: 

Beaulieu 2006
Beaulieu 4008
Beaulieu 6008
Elmo 240S-XL
Elmo 1012S-XL
Yashica Electro 600 

The images are very similar on all of them, tho the Elmo 1012S-XL is probably the one I'd keep if I sold the rest. 
 

41 minutes ago, Shane C Collins said:

I would not consider the Elmo Super 110 junk far from it.

Heck if I know! 

41 minutes ago, Shane C Collins said:

Nor would I say my Eumig projector was junk. Built from solid metal, and with precise gates, and removable sprockets for Standard 8 and Super 8.

I currently sport: 

Elmo ST-160
Elmo ST-1200HD
Bolex 18-5
Bolex SM-8

My main projector is the ST-1200HD, which I've refurbished, so she runs great. 

41 minutes ago, Shane C Collins said:

Dude you really are beating up on a format that is a joy to use, and view!

I think it's critical to separate personal preference with reality. There are some very cool aesthetic aspects of the format, but that has no relevance to the quality. There were some benefits to Kodachrome when shooting and projecting, but Ektachrome is meh and ya can't project negative obviously. Also, there is really no cost benefit to Super 8 anymore. 16mm price per minute at 24fps is damn close to the same if you scan. It's only when you project, when you see a bit of savings on Super 8, especially at 18fps. 

Lots of people are getting into older formats like VHS/BETA/Hi-8 and such. They love shooting and have a lot of joy. Good for them honestly, I have fixed many a deck and camera for them. I for one, couldn't wait to move up to 16mm as a kid. I couldn't wait to stop shooting SD analog video. I went through HD so fast and onto 4k before you could even blink an eye. Today, nearly everything I shoot is 4k - 8k, I even scan and finish my 16mm films at 4k and distribute them 4k as well. 

So it really depends on what you're after. The aesthetic aspects or the images inside the format. I'm all about the image, I don't really care about the aesthetics. The tactile nature of the format, doesn't translate to your audience very well. So if you're doing it for yourself and nobody else, that's a totally different thing than what a filmmaker is thinking about. That's kind of my point. Filmmakers give two shits about aesthetics, it's all about the image and why would they blow $5499 on a camera that gives them the same image as any of the cameras I mentioned above. 

[Tyler Purcell]

36 minutes ago, Scott Bullock said:

So, you're saying that Super 8 looks objectively "bad" because it doesn't look like 16mm and 35mm? I don't think anyone disagrees, so that seems like a weird standard to hold S8 to when it was never designed to supplant either of those formats, as I'm sure you know.

Exactly, you get it. 

So how can you call something "awesome" when you know for close to the same money you can get 2x the quality? 

[Giray Izcan]

27 minutes ago, Scott Bullock said:

That's a nice setup. I had an NPR converted to S16 by George at Optical Electro House before he retired. It had an AZ Spectrum video tap also. I ended up selling it and bought an ACL II. Kinda wish I still had it as it was a trouble-free camera the entire time I owned it.

In reading your other posts, I hope you're not setting yourself up for disappointment with your Super 8 short, but if you are expecting Super 8 to give the same or comparable results to your NPR, I fear you're heading down that road.

I'm with you on the price of the Kodak camera though. I've tried to find a way to justify that price because I really enjoy Super 8 a lot. Like, a lot a lot. However, I just can't do it. I agree that that sort of money would be much better spent on a rig like you've described or, if one wanted to really pursue Super 8, then to buy a high end, freshly serviced camera and spend the rest on film, processing and transfer. But then, it seems anyone who can afford this camera may not be concerned about film costs.

Thank you. Of course,  I do not expect anywhere near 16/s16 quality but I just want to see how 7213 behaves in low-key situations when it's rated 1 stop over and how it is going to feel on its own when it's shot in a "cinematic" fashion, stabilized , cropped and lit properly. I would only shoot 7219 in situations out of my control like night exteriors; otherwise, I find it too distracticgly grainy - even on s16.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Giray Izcan

[Scott Bullock]

14 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Exactly, you get it. 

So how can you call something "awesome" when you know for close to the same money you can get 2x the quality? 

Because it's more about aesthetics than you think. In another of your posts, you wrote: "Filmmakers give two shits about aesthetics, it's all about the image..."

I know cinematographers and filmmakers that'll never shoot on film again - any film. And I know filmmakers that will ONLY shoot on film. And I know filmmakers that base their format choice on the subject matter. And then I know filmmakers that don't give a damn what it's shot on and *only* care about story. These are the types that often shoot on whatever is available to them, perhaps because of budgetary reasons or whatever. The point is filmmakers make decision based on aesthetics all of the time. I almost started to list examples but really don't see the need, it's THAT common. 

[Scott Bullock]

31 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Thank you. Of course,  I do not expect anywhere near 16/s16 quality but I just want to see how 7213 behaves in low-key situations when it's rated 1 stop over and how it is going to feel on its own when it's shot in a "cinematic" fashion, stabilized , cropped and lit properly. I would only shoot 7219 in situations out of my control like night exteriors; otherwise, I find it too distracticgly grainy - even on s16.

Oh I got ya. Sounds like a worthy endeavor. You're right about the grain in 500T. That stock is hit and miss for me, even on S16 as you said. When scenes are predominantly dark or have a lot of deep shadows, the grain does become distracting. But in scenes where a lot of light is being bounced around, like "street" cinematography (so to speak), I've seen some good stuff. 200T is definitely the way to go for a short narrative of the type you described, IMO. Controlled lighting, etc. Yeah, that's the stock to use.

[Jon O'Brien]

I'm sure Super 8 can be made to look really sharp and impressive, getting somewhat towards a 16mm look, but I'm not really interested in it for that. I specifically got back into Super 8 because I wanted a format that looks obviously like film when viewed on a phone screen. It might surprise some, but 50D 16mm can look very clean and pristine on a phone screen. On a computer screen you can see that 16mm is actually scanned film, but on a phone only Super 8 looks very obviously like real film. Most young people tend to watch videos on their phones, and many of them really love Super 8. That's why I'm back into it. They're the ones getting married, and hopefully wanting wedding films (if they can afford them). Otherwise, I'd shoot 16mm and 35mm only. Lately I'm thinking even 16mm looks too grainy for a short film or feature movie, and ideally I'd shoot only 35mm 2-perf. Maybe one day.

[Scott Bullock]

2 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

I was actually interested in Elmo as I know they have a great lens. If I am not mistaken, that camera has 180 degree shutter angle at 24fps right? The narrow shutter angle is what I don't like about s8 cameras, in particular,  Beaulieus.. you lose a stop with that shutter angle.. I wish they were just standard 180..

You're shooting your short with the Minolta XL84, right? That's got a nice lens on it. One of the things I *don't* like about XL cameras, however, are their slow shutters. I think that camera has a 220 degree shutter, which equates to 1/39 at 24fps. That's slow, and there may be a perceivable loss in sharpness due to the shutter and not the lens.

Some of the reasons that my Beaulieu 6008 S has shot to the top of my list of most-used cameras are: Its low-light shutter is 144 degrees, which is 1/60 of a second at 24fps. This greatly reduces softness and blur due to camera movement. It uses a mirrored shutter, so all of the light stays directed toward the film plane, rather than being split to aid a viewfinder. This latter point means that I can use an incident meter without having to compensate for light loss to the viewfinder. Its film transport system is very stable. Not quartz crystal stable (that could be found on the PRO models, however) but very stable when compared to many, many other cameras. Only the Leicina Special rivals its stability, IMO. The 6008 S will read film stocks up to ISO 400. Finally, it comes with interchangeable lenses that can be used as truly manual lens, aperture ring and all. And these lenses are very, very nice. 

Anyway, those were some of the considerations that I took to heart when seeking a great Super 8 camera. The ergonomics took some getting used to, but I actually have adjusted to it really well. All these cameras have their idiosyncrasies I suppose. I've also started using some Single 8 cameras in the last several months for many of the same reasons outlined above. 

[Giray Izcan]

I am looking to adapt one of those cheap lipstick cameras and attach it to the viewfinder area with a clamp of some sort of a piece of black piece cloth with a hole for the camera to go through to make sure there is no light leak.. I would like to see s8 in some jib action - it doesn't even have to be a far reaching, maybe a 5ft Losmandy (?) Traveler jib. I wouldn't shoot a narrative on s8, though this one will be with sound design and everything.. I might as well, if I am spending money for processing and scanning, get something watchable and put together.. I would like to see how well I could incorporate s8 for some music videos when shot properly, or not... I never took s8 seriously so, I've only shot on this camera a handful of times. Now seeing the interest in the format pushed me into testing the format. I like to shoot at 2.8 regardless of format. I don't chase shallow depth of field with smaller gauge formats like s16 or s8, but instead, embrace the format for its deep depth of field. 2.8 on Minolta is 2 stops closed down on so I would expect a bump in sharpness. We'll see how it goes.

[Giray Izcan]

4 minutes ago, Scott Bullock said:

You're shooting your short with the Minolta XL84, right? That's got a nice lens on it. One of the things I *don't* like about XL cameras, however, are their slow shutters. I think that camera has a 220 degree shutter, which equates to 1/39 at 24fps. That's slow, and there may be a perceivable loss in sharpness due to the shutter and not the lens.

Some of the reasons that my Beaulieu 6008 S has shot to the top of my list of most-used cameras are: Its low-light shutter is 144 degrees, which is 1/60 of a second at 24fps. This greatly reduces softness and blur due to camera movement. It uses a mirrored shutter, so all of the light stays directed toward the film plane, rather than being split to aid a viewfinder. This latter point means that I can use an incident meter without having to compensate for light loss to the viewfinder. Its film transport system is very stable. Not quartz crystal stable (that could be found on the PRO models, however) but very stable when compared to many, many other cameras. Only the Leicina Special rivals its stability, IMO. The 6008 S will read film stocks up to ISO 400. Finally, it comes with interchangeable lenses that can be used as truly manual lens, aperture ring and all. And these lenses are very, very nice. 

Anyway, those were some of the considerations that I took to heart when seeking a great Super 8 camera. The ergonomics took some getting used to, but I actually have adjusted to it really well. All these cameras have their idiosyncrasies I suppose. I've also started using some Single 8 cameras in the last several months for many of the same reasons outlined above. 

Oh that's nice.. I was going off of the popular zmii model. I don't care about any of the automatic features as I don't use film to shoot vacations etc.. It's far too costly for that.