I have a pair of FX-3s and will not sell them short. FOr my money they are as good as any 35mm body but, then again I am a minimalist. But as I also own a Bronica ETRs system, I use the 35mm back mostly when I want to shoot 35mm. Yes, quite a bit heavier the the FX-3 but, not unweildy. I can not see spending gobs of cash on 2 separate systems so when I buy for a camera, it is to expand the Bronica. One day I might concentrate more on the Yashica as I do like the ML lens though not as much as my Leica.
The FX-3 seems to be the choice of Yashica SLRs. Looks good dressed up :) I have a Nikon FM2n and an old Konica, that will continue shooting without batteries. I knew nothing about Yashica glass before ordering the FX 70, and not much about Zeiss C/Y lenses, but I'm picking up things from the internet now. Yes, the 85mm 1.4 does get a good mention...
I saw a Yashica 24mm 2.8 for sale, but after reading a review/comparison, this lens does appear to be long in the tooth, soft in the corners, but very little aberration. I'm honing in on a Zeiss 35mm now.
Shot a bit with the FX-70 today; light and easy to use, works well. The shutter fires with a sharp metallic clang, loud but not heavy (not a 'tank slap' like the Konica). The film advance is a bit tight and crunchy, not as smooth as some other cameras. It does show its price level, but I really liked using. Light, pretty bright, AE, lens focuses easily. A decent lightbox to which I can affix good lenses.
Rich - since we are talking cameras, how do you rate the RTS II? I'm definitely picking up a contax body at some point. 167 bodies are cheap and readily available, Arias are light, but rts's are solid pro gear. Obviously, I'll have to take my preferences for weight and features into account but I'm seriously interested in the rts ii or iii.
My RTSII just arrived Monday and I'm putting first roll thru now. So far I like it a lot. It's all the RTS is and then some. III are very different. Check on the mir.my website for some good stuff about the II.
Hi to all,
the FX-D is not the same as the FX-70. The FX-D is more "advanced". Here you have a shutter dial, which is not available at the FX-70.
The FX-D is similiar to the Contax 139 and was released 1980. The FX-70 is a kind of "light" version of the FX-D. It is easier to handle and in my opinion a good choice for startes in the SLR world.
The FX-3 is a bit older from 1979. The FX-3 doesn't need any batteries and works fine with without though an exposure check.
My oldest Baby is an FX-2 from 1976 - very heavy but it is still in a fine working condition.
I love my yashicas and I wouldn't sell them.
Here my "collection".
FX-7 (actually a pimped FX-3)
FX-70 Quartz (belongs to my wife)
FX-109 (fancy thing)
200 AF (my favourite)
230 AF (has some AF Problems)
If anybody wants to know more,pls let me know.
Just bought a Yashica FR1 off *bay for £10, Apparently it was the Yashica equivalent of the Contax RTS, and it is built like it, too. One fault, and the only fault is that the film speed dial is stuck, and cannot be turned. It is stuck at ASA/ISO-80, one below the 100 ASA/ISO mark. But I have learned, and been advised that I can use it with a handheld exposure meter. Set the aperture and speed as the meter advises, and ignore the reading of the FR1's viewfinder. Or use the exposure compensation dial to adjust. I will also compare the FR1's readings with other cameras I have, to see how much difference there is.
It is the first Yashica I have owned, but will go with my 2 x Contaxes and lenses.
If anyone has any suggestions for easing/releasing the ISO dial(without removing the top plate, etc.) I would be pleased to hear.
Bellana - is the difference between fx7 and fx3 purely cosmetic? I heard the former was a chrome version of the latter. And why is the 200AF your favourite? Does it need an adapter to fit the c/y lenses?