Pablito
coco frío
The Yashica FX3 Super 2000 is not particularly reliable. It's on par with the Vivitar and Nikon FM10 made by Cosina. As a longtime photo teacher at a university, I can tell you that students that pick up any of these cameras have about if 50/50 chance of finishing the class with their camera still working. Shutter problems are the most common flaw.
Evanjoe610
Established
Has anyone here tried the Yashica FX-2 or the FR-1 body? I used these two bodies when I bought into the Contax/Yashica optics. THe FX-2 is totally manual no battery needed except for the meter. The FR-1 is battery dependent, but it was concept along with the RTS and shares many internal components. Both are available cheap on the wallet and Mark Hama, formerly of Yashica and Contax USA is the MAN for all Yashica and Contax repairs that Tocad America can not handle or has no parts for . I also use the COntax 139Q and Aria as my main electronic bodies with my assortment of Zeiss optics. The AX, ST, and RT3 are the "heavyweights" of the entire COntax lineup and are the very best. Zeiss optics are simply the best value for the money, especially the Contax/Yashica lineup.
navilluspm
Well-known
Well, I put in a bid for a Fx-3 2000 super on the 'bay from Goodwill Seattle. I will see what happens. If it doesn't go through, maybe I will just wait a while and see what happens to my finances what what deals pop up. The camera still works, it is just loud and frustrating.
charjohncarter
Veteran
My experience is that within the same format, the camera body doesn't make any difference. In fact, within reason I'm not even sure that lenses make much difference. I know this will start a polemic, but I have never seen a photo that is good or great that would have been improved upon by using a different camera or lens (again within the same format).
murpograph
Established
what is a camera?
what is a camera?
A camera is a box presenting the film for a certain time to the light. As long as it cares for an uncurved film it won't influence the quality of the picture projected on the film-surface by the lens. The difference of the bodies is determined by solidity and reliability of the exposure-meter or the exposing-programs.
Go for the body you like and keep the lenses you love.
what is a camera?
A camera is a box presenting the film for a certain time to the light. As long as it cares for an uncurved film it won't influence the quality of the picture projected on the film-surface by the lens. The difference of the bodies is determined by solidity and reliability of the exposure-meter or the exposing-programs.
Go for the body you like and keep the lenses you love.
bmattock
Veteran
I agree - mostly. I do think that the differences between many similar types of lenses are minimal, but I am also convinced that a) some few lenses are of such high quality that they can produce sharper images at wider apertures, and b) different lens formulae can produce a different 'effect'. The effect might not be a 'better' or 'worse' thing, but just a matter of preference.
Bigeejit
Member
I have a Yashica FX3 and it's a little diamond.Small like an Olympus OM but lighter and it will bang away all day if you can afford to shoot all that film.The FX3 SUPER 2000 is a later camera and I believe it was made in China.My FX-3 is made in Japan and has that papery leather covering like on some Contax SLR's,but although it looks like it just rolled down a mountain,it is spookly accurate and a no fuss shooter and with a Zeiss lens on it is a great piece of kit.Also have the FR-1 and that is a fine camera,solidly built and a nice quality feel off it although I prefer the weight of the FX-3...
bmattock
Veteran
Made in Japan, by Cosina. They also made the FX-3 that you have - they just made it better. Cosina makes the cameras to the specs their customers are willing to pay for. Yashica wanted cheaper, they got cheaper. Same camera, otherwise.
Bigeejit
Member
http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Yashica_FX-3
This is where I picked up the China info..is it incorrect?
This is where I picked up the China info..is it incorrect?
Sonnar2
Well-known
I have heard the same, the Contax S2 beeing a Cosina made Yashica FX-3 super-2000 just with metal covers, controls and like that. Since I already have this camera (loud, reliable thing, bought very cheap) I have no need for that "Contax"....
My Japanese Contax ist the 139. I still like using it, and I love the shutter speed dial arranged in a similar way than on my avatar camera. The 84/1.4 is mostly attached to it, where the 180/2.8 is on the manual Yashica.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Well, I am looking at the bottom of my FX-3 Super 2000 right now, and it says:
JAPAN 9211403
It also has the "Passed JCII C/D JMDC 1982" sticker on it still.
I presume that means 'Made in Japan'.
I have a lot of Cosina-made cameras. To the best of my knowledge, they did not make any in China.
There is a company in China that makes a similar-looking camera, a licensed clone of the Minolta X-370, which they originally made on Minolta's old equipment, called Seagull.
http://www.camerachina.com/
Some of their cameras looked a lot like the Cosina designs, so maybe that's where the confusion came from.
IMHO, the worst-ever Cosina was better than the best-ever Seagull.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
I have had and used the FX3 super 2000 (which I donated to a teen ager who took a photography course at high school) and I still have and use the S2.
Ever since The S2 appeared I heard repeating again and again the same story that it is the same camera.
For my modest experience there is no comparison.
Another story is to say that the difference in price is disproportional.
A Toyota and a Lexus have some common roots but are different cars
Ever since The S2 appeared I heard repeating again and again the same story that it is the same camera.
For my modest experience there is no comparison.
Another story is to say that the difference in price is disproportional.
A Toyota and a Lexus have some common roots but are different cars
Ming The Merciless
Established
The S2 is not the same camera as the Yashica FX3 Super 2000. The FX3 is smaller, lighter and more flimsy. That being said, I've had a lot of trouble with my S2, mainly with the film advance. If it breaks again, off it goes to KEH as a non functioning camera. :-(
Prosaic
Well-known
Are the S2 / S2b the only fully mechanical cameras in the Contax line up? And considering the RTS (I, II, III): Would you still recommend buying one or do you expect electronics to fail anytime soon?
Sonnar2
Well-known
Of course it's much lighter because the outer shells are made of plastic.
The outer shells don't make a camera work. What's under them is important.
Probably the S2 is much more "flimsy" because so many have reported trouble with them. After all, the S2 is a collectors camera whereas the FX3-2000 probably was made in 10-20x the number. This is why to doubt the S2 was made by Cosina because usually their cameras are very reliable and dependable.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
Prosaic,
I have a RTSIII but I do feel I can take the responsibility of the kind of buying advice you require.
There are too many factors playing and then there is chance.
I warn you: RTSIII is heavy and takes 6 AA.
If you don't mind weight and lack of autofocus it simply one of the best srl ever.
It is built to last, if I remember well they even duplicated certain circuits.
Personally I treat cameras with care and use them lightly because I am not a pro and I have many cameras. In the case of the RTSIII I bought it new (fool that I am: if I had imagined the digital revolution back then..). Thus I cannot testify about intensive and rough use.
I would also consider another factor. Unfortunately C/Y mount has been abandoned. And those that invested in it left stranded.
One can take advantage of subsequent advances in optic technology on the M platform, including the latest ZM or on the Nikon platform (ZF) if one insists on a srl.
Best luck
I have a RTSIII but I do feel I can take the responsibility of the kind of buying advice you require.
There are too many factors playing and then there is chance.
I warn you: RTSIII is heavy and takes 6 AA.
If you don't mind weight and lack of autofocus it simply one of the best srl ever.
It is built to last, if I remember well they even duplicated certain circuits.
Personally I treat cameras with care and use them lightly because I am not a pro and I have many cameras. In the case of the RTSIII I bought it new (fool that I am: if I had imagined the digital revolution back then..). Thus I cannot testify about intensive and rough use.
I would also consider another factor. Unfortunately C/Y mount has been abandoned. And those that invested in it left stranded.
One can take advantage of subsequent advances in optic technology on the M platform, including the latest ZM or on the Nikon platform (ZF) if one insists on a srl.
Best luck
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
Edit: do not feel
robbiechad
RobbieChad
Hi, I have the Yashica MP 108 fitted with the excellent Yashica 1.4ML standard lens which is a cracker, Ive had the camera from new since 1991 and although I cant say it has been heavily used it has been very reliable, the only downside to it is the very poor viewfinder information. Worth a look and I dont think they are expensive on the second hand market.