Yashica Super 40 Electronic, I wonder what its actually worth?

[Orestes Roumeliotis]

Hi,

I recently picked up a basic auto exposure Bolex style Yashica Super 40. In spite of all things it's a fairly decent camera, I mean it shoots 12, 18 and the kicker which is 24fps so it can be spliced with digital footage easily. It's auto exposure, and the light meter seems to work off the double A batteries. It's a reflex camera so has the bonus of being able to focus through the lens, and it has a reasonably fast, reasonably wide lens at F/1.8 and 9-36 giving a 4x zoom ratio. I guess the downside is that it only meters for films between 25 and 200 speed but with the super 8 film standard being so small, it doesn't make sense really to shoot above 50 speed film... I digress.

I picked it for $40. I reckon given that its in pristine condition except for one scuff that can be seen in this photo and the lens is clear with no noticable dust or fungus issues, and the fact that I have now film tested it, I would say it would have to be worth at least $100.

I was going to use it but now its surplus to an Elmo 1012S-XL I picked up. If you saw a camera like this and you knew it was film tested and working, how much above the costs of a non-tested camera would you be willing to pay. Hos much more would you pay for the guarantee that your camera was actually film tests and ready to shoot of the box?

It seems like a good camera, it's just like other manufacturers though . There are food and bad places out there.

[Maurice Leakey]

I would suggest that as it only meters with two film speeds it is not really worth very much.
A pity, as its other facilities sound quite good.

[Simon McConway]

I'd go up to $5

[Shane C. Collins]

According to filmkorn.org, this camera will meter the following film speeds: auto for 25/40, 40/64, 64/100, 100/160, 160/250 ASA (daylight/tungsten)
I have the Yashica Super 60 which is similar to this model. These cameras are built well, and have nice lenses. You should buy a cartridge of the new Ektachrome 100D color reversal film. Set the cameras backlight function so the camera will overexpose this stock at 64 ASA. Trust me this new film needs lots of light, and will look beautiful projected if you use my method for exposure. A little unknown fact about these early Yashicas, is the fact the lenses can be unscrewed, and taken off for cleaning.

https://www.filmkorn.org/super8data/...ca_super40.htm

[Orestes Roumeliotis]

Exactly shane what I meant to say is that it will meter for anything between 25 and 200 as I couldn't be bothered with typing out 25/40, 40/64, 64/100, 100/160, 160/250 ASA. I am currently puting a cartridge of Vision 3 50D through it. I may well end up keeping the thing but...

I bought this camera and then I saw an Elmo 1012S-XL pop up in my are for 90 and was like damn... Now I have two cameras, which I don't really have a use for both.

Running some film through it, it is a nice camera indeed. Although at F/1.8 the lens isn't the fastest... 9mm is kind of on the wide side for super 8. Its also a reflex type camera which is nice, as you look directly through the lens.

I guess the downside with flexibility of this camera is that it doesn't have a manual exposure setting, so you just point it at something and it works or it doesn't.

That's my real gripe... my kingdom for a camera that doesn't rely upon TTL/EE (electric eye) auto exposure.

Maybe it does have a manual exposure button? I just haven't found it yet...

I mean EE is good, but sometimes you don't want EE, the light meter doesn't always get it right, especially with heavily backlit scenarios such as shooting at sunset, where an auto exposure will try to set everything to black, or everything to white as it can't find 50% middle (neutral) grey.

Unfortunately I paid $40 for it because I found it on ebay, which isn't a bad price overall considering everything works on it. But I'm kinda feeling limited by the fact that it doesn't have a manual exposure setting.

[Maurice Leakey]

.....What I meant to say is that it will meter for anything between 25 and 200 as I couldn't be bothered with typing out 25/40, 40/64, 64/100, 100/160, 160/250 ASA...

In view of the above which puts a different view on the matter I am pleased to retract my earlier comment.

[Winbert Hutahaean]

Hi,

...It would have to be worth at least $100.

Is this your own appraisal?

This camera does not have that much value. People nowadays are looking for Elmo, Nizo, Nikon, Leica, Beaulieu, Bauer or maybe some high-end Sankyos.

That $40 you have paid is rather over price for a basic camera like this.

My 2 cents though.

[Osi Osgood]

It all comes down to demand, these days, no matter how good or even how advanced the equipment is. As some others have stated, unless you run into those very rare collectors that collect yashica equipment, it would go for your average thrift store price, a few dollars, not much more.

[Dave Bickford]

According to filmkorn.org, this camera will meter the following film speeds: auto for 25/40, 40/64, 64/100, 100/160, 160/250 ASA (daylight/tungsten)
I have the Yashica Super 60 which is similar to this model. These cameras are built well, and have nice lenses. You should buy a cartridge of the new Ektachrome 100D color reversal film. Set the cameras backlight function so the camera will overexpose this stock at 64 ASA. Trust me this new film needs lots of light, and will look beautiful projected if you use my method for exposure. A little unknown fact about these early Yashicas, is the fact the lenses can be unscrewed, and taken off for cleaning.

Thanks for that info Shane. I have a Super 40 like the original poster. I haven’t shot film with it yet, but I was indeed looking at using the Ektachrome 100D and was trying to figure out how to tweak the exposure. Also how to manually disable the 85A daylight filter. (Will read the manual)

To the original poster: I spent more than $40 on my Yashica Super 40 but it came with the owner’s manual and the original case (with lock and key). And also the original silica gel packet. 😁My specific Super 40 camera is in mint condition. Almost NOS. I’m not mad. Can’t wait to try it out!

[Shane C. Collins]

Thanks for that info Shane. I have a Super 40 like the original poster. I haven’t shot film with it yet, but I was indeed looking at using the Ektachrome 100D and was trying to figure out how to tweak the exposure. Also how to manually disable the 85A daylight filter. (Will read the manual)

To the original poster: I spent more than $40 on my Yashica Super 40 but it came with the owner’s manual and the original case (with lock and key). And also the original silica gel packet. 😁My specific Super 40 camera is in mint condition. Almost NOS. I’m not mad. Can’t wait to try it out!

Your welcome Dave, The early Yashica Super 8 cameras are underrated according to some online reviews I have read. I have the Yashica Super 600 which is basically the same as these other models. I originally typed here it was a Super 60 when in fact its a Super 600. To be honest I haven't shot film in it just yet, but plan to do so this Spring or Summer. I will say the front lens has a very nice coating which indicates Yashica used good glass on these early cameras. My go to cameras are the Elmo Super 110, and the Yashica 50 XL from the early 80's. The Elmo has an amazing lens, probably the sharpest in my collection. My only beef with it is the fact I don't have a backlight function. Yes it does have a manual override, and this is how I increase one stop more exposure. But when you're shooting on the run, so to speak, it's nice to just shoot in auto. So my plan is to add an extra notch on the next Ektachrome cart I shoot film with. I'll use some of that ribbon epoxy, and make a form so the next cart is set up at the 64 ASA notch. When the cart is installed in the Elmo it will push the 64 ASA pin, and increase the exposure one stop. This will allow me to shoot in full auto-mode without needing to fiddle with manual exposure.

Anyways your Yashica, when set on the backlight function, will expose the new Ektachrome perfectly. Don't listen to what others will tell you online about the new stock not needing more light. Trust me I've shot enough of this new formula to know how it performs. It may say 100 ASA on the box, but if you shoot it this way you will receive back from the lab very dark images. The new Ektachrome looks its best at 64 ASA. I've come to the conclusion it's less sensitive to light, and not notched properly at Kodak. But easy enough, just compensate. The early Yashicas, like yours, should disable the 85 filter automatically when you insert a daylight stock. There is a pin inside the camera that is set-up to do this. But be sure to test the camera first. If this is not the case then insert the filter retracting key at the top of the camera. My Yashica Super 600 came with one, and it works very easily.

Dave make sure you use a ND filter when shooting with Ektachrome on sunny days. I use a X4 which reduces the f stops by 2. This also helps produce sharper images projected on screen. The sweet spot for this new stock is f 5.6 to f 8. Although I've also gotten good sharp projected images at f 11. Also remember you would still use the backlight function with the ND filter screwed onto the lens barrel. The camera will compensate for the light loss, but still open the aperture so the film is metering at a lower ASA.

[Orestes Roumeliotis]

Make sure you use a ND filter when shooting with Ektachrome on sunny days.

It depends on whether you're shooting with the intent to project, or the intent to copy. If you're shooting film with the intent to copy it and play it on your computer the 85filter is no longer relevant. It's far easier to not use an 85filter and adjust the footage in post if you are doing non-linear editing. This is because the effects of a filter can't be removed.

I have some footage shot on 800T (500T) on my medium format stills camera. I used an 85 filter and now wish I didn't. Once you bake in a filter its hard (if not impossible) to correct the white balance in post.

If you're using Premiere (or whatever it is you have E.G. iMovie, or the free version of DaVinci) It's very easy to change the white balance. If you use an 85filter on your lens, you will bake that into the footage you shoot.

I mean, it's OK if your'e projecting and don't want everything to come out blue... But how many of us are actually using an 8mm silent projector these days? If anything people are editing in post on computer and then if you're some rich, fat, cinema geek like George Lucas (with Attack of the Clones as the first example) transferring back onto film for projecting using transfer film.

Hmm... The only real problem with any of that is that my cheque book isn't as big as what George Lucas's is, and there is no 8mm transfer film except for Tri-X so if you want to transfer these days you either have to go to 16mm or 35mm to find an appropriate stock if you start with colour for transfer film...

TBH: Most people these days would choose to use a digital projector instead if they intend to project and save the hassle of degrading their film from running it through an old projector...

What you have said is useful, but only to the point of wanting to do it the old fashioned way.

[Brian Fretwell]

ND is Neutral Density (to prevent over exposure burnout of the picture, underexposure is better) not colour correction as with the 85.

[Shane C. Collins]

It depends on whether you're shooting with the intent to project, or the intent to copy. If you're shooting film with the intent to copy it and play it on your computer the 85filter is no longer relevant. It's far easier to not use an 85filter and adjust the footage in post if you are doing non-linear editing. This is because the effects of a filter can't be removed.

I have some footage shot on 800T (500T) on my medium format stills camera. I used an 85 filter and now wish I didn't. Once you bake in a filter its hard (if not impossible) to correct the white balance in post.

If you're using Premiere (or whatever it is you have E.G. iMovie, or the free version of DaVinci) It's very easy to change the white balance. If you use an 85filter on your lens, you will bake that into the footage you shoot.

I mean, it's OK if your'e projecting and don't want everything to come out blue... But how many of us are actually using an 8mm silent projector these days? If anything people are editing in post on computer and then if you're some rich, fat, cinema geek like George Lucas (with Attack of the Clones as the first example) transferring back onto film for projecting using transfer film.

Hmm... The only real problem with any of that is that my cheque book isn't as big as what George Lucas's is, and there is no 8mm transfer film except for Tri-X so if you want to transfer these days you either have to go to 16mm or 35mm to find an appropriate stock if you start with colour for transfer film...

TBH: Most people these days would choose to use a digital projector instead if they intend to project and save the hassle of degrading their film from running it through an old projector...

What you have said is useful, but only to the point of wanting to do it the old fashioned way.

You'd be surprised how many of us are projecting our Super 8 films. After all that's what film was intended for, and it's fun as well! I've seen enough digital copies to know that isn't for me. Film will always look its sharpest on a projector. I use an early Eumig Mark S projector that is very gentle, and has never scratched a film. The other aspect is gathering everyone around the projector. It's the experience of hearing, and seeing the projector in action. If I didn't project I would be less likely to shoot my home movies on film.

[Shane C. Collins]

I'd also like to add my intent here was to help Dave with shooting film and projecting. So yes I was coming into this the old fashioned way and getting proper exposure. I'm not even sure he projects, but if he does my method of shooting the newest Ektachrome will give him superior results on screen. I also understand many people today shun the idea of projecting film, and much of that is the push from online sources telling people to shoot film then watch it digitally. More power to them but it's not interesting to me. I think this approach diminishes or takes away the fun of film projection. I'm just making a point here from a different angle. I also realize I may be in the minority when it comes to film projection. I'm just a purist and can't help it lol.

[Joseph Banfield]

I certainly can not imagine shooting film and not viewing it like it was intended to be viewed on a projector! I think most everyone on this forum projects their films and most of the discussions here are about projectors. But I do understand that the trend now is to film and to transfer directly to digital and do all post production on the computer.