Reviews

Here's a review of the FX-D from 1985.

Particularly interesting are the comments on the ML 50 f2...



FX-D review 1985

I don't think I'm the only one to look for a particular camera body in really good working order, only to find that it can be a real chore to actually get one. I went through several Spotmatics, Mamiya 500/1000 DTL's, Olympus OM 1&2 models, etc., before I ended up with one of them that I'd call rock solid and fully functional. With FX-D's, FX-103's, FX-1's, the opposite was true. Almost every one of them I've bought used has fired on the first try, has been reasonably accurate enough in metering to trust, and didn't make me doubt if they'd last a month before screeching to a halt in mid-roll.

With a quick lookup through some 1980's Popular Photography ads, they were about the same price as the Pentax ME, Nikon FM & EM, Minolta XG-9, Konica FS-1, and a few more. I don't know how comparable all those feature sets would be, but from what was in my sights at the time they were selling, I ended up buying the FR-I. Primarily it was because of the Contax compatible accessories and the (what I thought at the time) beefier and more rugged cast frame and all-metal body construction. In hindsight I could have been equally happy with the FX-D. The plastic gearing inside the FR's didn't make it into the reviews I read back then. :)

I'd have to agree on the tendancy for some to overlook the slightly slower kit lenses as inadequate or lesser quality, or not sharp. I can't say the 1.9 or 2.0 lenses are great when wide open like the 1.7 or 1.4, but how many of us spend all our shooting time in the 1.4 or 1.2 range when we have them available to use. I'm happy to have a fast lens when absolutely needed, but I'm totally fine with an f/2 or even a 3.5 lens at 5.6/8 where I'd shoot anyway - when the results are pretty much the same as lugging around the big glass. I'd also be very unhappy if I dinged up the pricier lens just because 'it looks cool on-camera' when it isn't necessary for eeking out a low light shot, or wanting bubble bokeh or whatever character effect it adds to the shot.

And speaking of bad leather(ette) and coloring... I knew a newspaper photog when I was working in TV that had his camera body wrapped in flat-black gaffers tape. He never wanted even a hint of glint or glare coming off any part of it to give away his position while he was working. My 10x or 12x zooms got me in close, but it wasn't that easy for him to get close enough for print work. When you might get shot while covering hostage negotiations, you don't really want to be noticed, and the last thing he cared about was how nice his camera looked.

Modern Photography's "Modern Tests" for the Yashica FR-I, the ML 28mm f/2.8, and the DSB 38-90 f/3.5

PDF - 5 pages: cdn.yashicaforum.net/wl/?id=ve0t47vP2KiDo54n9a3scoiyUL3QUgNX&fmode=open