I would like to know if Fx-3 s.2000 has metal body or plastic. It is made from metal inside, I have no doubts. But outside? I have it but do not recognize it. But it can operate without bateries too. firstname.lastname@example.org
Pavel, The Yashica FX3-2000 has a polycarbonate (plastic) top cover and bottom cover. Yashica, and many other manufacturers have gone beyond the Canon AE-1 which had a plastic cover but it was finished to look like chrome finish.
I though too it is *plastic only*, but more than one man told me that it has also metal cover. I did not hit with it (fortunatelly), so it is not so important that it is only polycarbonate.
But producer should arrange interchangeable screens or winder (other yashica cameras has it, why not Fx3???) I miss it.
Fx3 produces no more, they stopped with it? Now is FX7 (only metal version of FX3, nothing were changed?)
best regards Pavel
Just noticed this, which was of interest to me since HP's scanner division is here in San Diego:
==== Kodak moving from lagging film business to computer printers San Diego Union, 8/22/03
NEW YORK Eastman Kodak Co. said yesterday it would push aggressively into the commercial printer market, pitting itself against the likes of IBM and Hewlett Packard Co., as it moves further away from its shrinking consumer film business.
Kodak based in Rochester, N.Y., said it had hired a 30 year veteran of HP, James Langley, to run its new commercial printing unit, which also will compete against Xerox Corp. and Canon Inc.
"It puts us in the game," Kodak chief executive Daniel Carp said. He added that the company has been working for several years on developing the business, which includes machines that print such things as books, brochures and fliers.
"We are more convinced than ever of the opportunity in this area," Carp said, adding that Kodak also sees growth in digital imaging, health imaging and commercial imaging. Kodak is realigning its businesses for the second time in two years as new President Antonio Perez focuses more on digital technology and less on traditional consumer film.
Perez, who headed HP's San Diego operation, is trying to generate growth in new businesses as sales of consumer film drop and become a smaller part of Kodak's business. Kodak has struggled to remain profitable as consumers abandon traditional film for digital cameras and price competition increases with Japan's Fuji Photo Film Co.
Last month, Kodak reported a 60 percent drop in profit and said it would cut up to 9 percent of its work force, or 4,500 to 6,000 jobs.
Kodak has long been in the commercial printing business with its NexPress digital printing system joint venture and with its Kodak Polychrome Graphics, one analyst said. But the division has never been a unit with its own leader.
"This indicates that they are committed to it, that they see it as a growth opportunity and that they are putting the resources behind it, as opposed to just being in the business," said Ron Gilboa, director of printing and publishing consulting service Cap Ventures Inc. in Norwell, Mass.
Kodak shares gained 31 cents, or 1 percent, to close at $28.54 yesterday on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock fell sharply in June after the company halved its profit outlook for the most recent quarter, and is down almost 19 percent for the year.
I don't know whether the FX 3 Super 2000 is plastic or metal, but I do know that I love this little gem of a Camera. I bought another one of these last winter/spring after having given my first one to a lady friend. The fact that it takes Zeiss lenses, is compact and light weight make it a boone to photography.
I echo Vincent's comments ..... the FX-3 Super 2000 is THE unsung hero of Yashica's (or Contax's) stable.
Metal or plastic is irrelevant (itâ€™s both). It performs well, looks good in old age, itâ€™s cheap and versatile!
Your image qualities will be much more dependant on the lens than the shoe-box that it is attach to. It might seem odd (perverse!) to put a mortgage-costing Zeiss 300 f2.8 on a budget camera but you will NOT see the difference in the final image.
It has full non-battery dependent operati... so makes it ideal for a back-up camera in a full syst... or as a prime body in itâ€™s own right.
I use it as back-up for my AX and my partnerâ€™s 137MA in outdoor field activities and as the main camera for Astro work. Cold hands and zero light make me nervous to putting the AX on and off the telescope frequently during an observation session ... but what the hell ...if I drop the FX-3, Iâ€™d buy another S/H one for the cost of a meal in a restaurant rather than grab the calculator to see how long it would take me to pay off the cost of another AX.
A nice incidental touch is the mirror up first, if you set the mechanical self-timer... great for Astro and long lenses! Great (although fixed screen) viewfinder and easy to operate controls.
ITâ€™S A BARGAIN...GRAB ONE NOW...WHILE STOCKS LAST!
Heres a link to a few of the raw scans, no processing other than converting to jpg.
# 41 is a polaroid ss 4000 version of # 24 which as are all the others done on an LS 1000.
Bear with the grain, spots and all the other crud.
The files are large, but give a good idea of the lenses capability.
Internet Explorer may not be able to open them, better bet would be whatever photo editor you use if you decide to DL any of them.
Lets face it .... it's not a Zeiss, but the only time I used the Zeiss 300 f2.8, I was so s**t scared I'd drop it in front of the Contax Rep that I probably admit to not getting the best out of it.... even though the shots I took were very impressive (to me!)
The Tamron is a cracker too....and Iâ€™m not the least bit disappointed with it, in any way. I paid just over Â£400 for it S/H which is exceptionally low in the UK ... I think Â£600 is more common. That would buy me what fraction of the Zeiss? Even second-hand ... Assuming you could find one!
It is contrasty, sharp and performs well wide open. It's very well built, looks like it will last a lifetime and easy to use.... works well with my AX even though it shouldn't (in theory!)
The 1.4x it came with is upto the job and I have even used my 2x Teleplus Macro convertor with it (as a conventional 2x) and it still looks good.
The shots do not look out of place when projected along side my Zeiss shots to 6ft by 4ft. (Cynics will tell me to get a better projection lens or improve my skills! I'll politely ignore them!)
So the question boils down to ... should I have sold my car to buy a S/H Zeiss..... or ..... stump up the price of a camera body to get a Tamron ...... or ...... not buy, or have the pleasure of owning, either!
I chose the middle option and have not regretted it one little bit!
Paul... did you notice that the photo of the lens for sale appears to be identical to the photo in the review link I posted!
Do you think it is the same person who wrote the review that is selling the lens? Or could it just be someone else using the review photo? If it is the latter, I wonder why they did not use a photo of the actual lens for sale? Or could it be another reason altogether?
I personally would want to check which of the reasons it is, with the seller, before making a bid. AND, certainly before I parted with my money!
Strange or coincidence? I didn't notice that at all until I revisited you geocities link. I do notice on ebay that you will find the same picture on diferrent auctions. Maybe there are people who don't have a decent pic of their item and use one they find on the web. With the cheapness of digitals now, that should recede.
If it is the case that the picture was "borrowed", I think they should mention that the picture is not of the actual item for sale, and give credit to who ever they "borrowed" the image from! Better still, state that permission was sought and obtained!
Of course, there are other reasons too, for not being able to supply a picture of the actual item for sale!
One Astro chap spotted his own highly modified (customized) telescope for sale on Ebay. The seller did not even have the decency to write his own text but "borrowed" it from the owner's website. There could be no conclusion other than fraud for trying to sell the item as described due to the modified and unique nature of the scope.
Not that I am implying that there is anything improper in the Ebay item sale that you mentioned, just that one has to take care, especially in the case of "borrowed" pictures!
Long exposure times with FX-3 s.2000.
I made a following experience with FX-3. I quite often use a long ex. times- B- with Yashica. I repetedly found that if you exposure long enough (50 sec. and more), a light of the diod will appear on the film- so- photography then. If you press the shutter and hold it (or with wire release), you activate measuring diods (by pressing a release). If the shutter is open long enough its(diod's) light will become visible on the film (it lights red + diod so you will see a red shine on the side of the film). It looks like shortcoming of the producer, had two Yashica FX-3, both did it. It also happened once with very short exposition- 1/1000 or 1/2000 in the againstlight. I found a simple solution but I would like other users opinions or their experiences.
I had the same experience with Cosina C1 body. Seems to be a common problem with cheep cameras. Using Cosina at B setting I just removed batteries to deactivate the metering system. This is not a solution for electronic shutters.