Why do people insist on hating the Rolleiflex 2.8GX so much?

I have never seen any camera elicit more gratuitous bashing than the
poor Rolleiflex 2.8GX. Myth #1: "It's made of plastic!" In point
of fact, it weighs more than a 2.8F(iv) and appears to be metal in
ALL the same places as any classic 'flex. Myth #2: "It won't hold
up." I know people who have used the GX for 10+ years without a
problem. And the estimable Harry Fleenor claims the 2.8GX is as
reliable as any Rollei out there. To me, the lens appears to be
sharper than the old Planar 2.8; the metering system seems first rate
(the old selenium averaging meter was no better than using the sunny
16 rule in my experience); and the shutter, currently a Copal, is
every bit the equal of the occasionally dodgy Synchro-Compur. Before
I plunk down my money (Ken Hansen in NYC has GXs new for $2200), is
there any legitimate knock on the GX that I should know about (and
don't mention the regrettable absence of a self-timer -- no shutter
mfr. in business today offers a mechanical leaf shutter with that
facility -- it's not Rollei's fault).

 

Roger,

I don't hate it. I didn't know it was a hated camera! I just can afford it. I use a $100 Autocord and a $150 Yashica Mat 124 and a $300 Crown Graphic 23, and the results are wonderful. For me, it's only price. Is there any "patron of the arts" out there who'd like to send me one? Money is the bottom line on this!...as it is with most up-scale cameras now days.

The posted image is at Edward Weston Beach, Point Lobos, California, using a Yashica Mat 124 (not "G") on Reala film, Fuji Frontier print.

<img src="http://www.zing.com/picture/pfe1e211b1ba3bb894948b8f8853f553d/feccf130.jpg.orig.jpg">

 

So who's bashing the quality of the 2.8GX? Buy it and be happy. I do wonder why people buy them though. They seem kind of expensive for a TLR with non-interchangeable lenses. Just out of curiosity, why would you prefer it to a Rollei 6000 series or Hasselblad 6 X 6 SLR for the same amount of money? The SLRs are much more flexible and are beautiful cameras by any measure. Don't get me wrong, I have a 3.5F and think it's quite nice, but they seem a bit anachronistic at $2200 for a new one. It seems like more of a nostalgia item.

 

It seems like one could buy a nearly mint older rollie, a top light meter, a whole lot of film, a good tripod, and all those expensive filters and close-up lenses for that price. But it's nice to see that they still make and sell those TLR's.

 

I haven't noticed any particular 2.8GX-bashing; I suspect what bashing may occur probably involves wishing for one but not being able to afford it.

Relatively speaking, it's about the same price as a 501CM outfit, and while that may seem to be expensive for a camera that isn't modular, as you know it has some advantages that the other cameras don't have.

 

There are rumors of a new Rollei TLR, the GX without the metering, at a reduced price. Actually, it's the metering (especially TTL flash) that attracts me to the camera. I love my 3.5F Planar, but have also grown to love the TTL flash with my Nikons. If you can do without the metering, you might hold back for while, and save some money.

 

Roger, I have a GX for nearly 10 years now. No problems. The lens is great and the light meter fantastic. I prefer it over a Rollei 6000 as a light camera for travel. The difference in weight is substantial. By the way, there seem to be add on self-timers. Ferdi.

 

Hey todd of all the images i've seen you post over the time I've been at photo.net I like that one the most.

 

doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Roger you are in luck, I was on the rollei list a while back when a member made this post, I believe the member was named todd and this was the url
http://digistar.com/rollei/1999-11/0010.html


The GX has full and half stop clicks.
The GX requires a battery.
The GX has minimal internal baffling in the lens chamber.
The GX's film knobs will not lock in the "out" posistion.
The GX's back will not remove-easily.
The GX does not have the mirror or lens in the waistlevel finder to view
focus for the sport finder.
The GX has a different neck strap system
The GX has numbers and letters that are painted on rather than etched
into the metal. ie the distance scales on the focus knob.
The GX does not have a flash sych cord lock.
The GX's meter is centre wieghted-a wide spot meter covering a bit over
the central microprism area.
The GX requires that filters be applied to the viewfinder bayonet to
determine the compensation factor for the meter if the filter factor is
not known.
The GX has only X synch.
The GX does not feel like an F. Although a very high precision camera,
it does not have the same silky smoothness overall that characterises
the F and previous Rolleiflexes.

Hope this helps


Altaf Shaikh
http://www.usefilm.com
Projects for Photographers

 

Thanks for the advice. As to why I would prefer a TLR to a MF SLR like a 'blad or a Rollei 6003/6008, I list the following TLR advantages (or, more accurately perhaps, SLR disadvantages): (1) in my experience the mirror slap on MF SLRs prevents capturing perfectly sharp images -- particularly handheld. The 'blad is especially bad in this regard; (2) there is a very long PRE-photo blackout period with a MF SLR, so you can't see the subject when the image is captured; (3) SLRs are very noisy; (4) if you use a filter, you have to view through the filter with resulting loss of finder brightness; (5) with a modular system, you are constantly tempted to indulge in very expensive lenses that you end up not using too much; (6) the SLRs are not really very portable; and (7) i have never found the 'blad Planar 80mm (or the much touted 100mm 3.5 Planar) to be as sharp as the Rollei 80mm Planar (although this could be related to point 1, rather than being due to any inherent superiority of the Rollei/Zeiss lens).

 

Roger, perhaps your under the impression that because some long time Rolleiflex TLR users don't desire a 2.8GX, that they somehow dislike the camera or think its inferior to previous Rollei's. Speaking for myself, I regularly make pictures with 2 different early 50's Automat's, and -frankly- don't need anything else from a TLR that these units can't deliver. Of course, I try my hardest to stay between f5.6-f16, and in these focal length's a 2.8 offers no advantage. I did search for a TLR that uses 220 film, and now have two of those as well (Yashica 124-Autocord CdS-III) purchased at (I'm sure) a small percentage of what a GX would cost. Even used.

That said, I'd love a GX for myself! If it happens, I'll gladly use and enjoy it, for I'm sure it's a wonderful unit. Rollei ownership is almost a brotherhood, and I've never bought into the "keeping up with the Jones'" way of thinking. If I never buy another Rolleiflex TLR, I'll still have camera's that will always be better than I am. I've never met a Rollei TLR I didn't like.

 

The GX is a collectors item, and the price reflects that. The absolute truth is that it is no better at producing images than a good
$ 600 late 2.8 F.

 

Problem is that it's almost impossible to find a 2.8F in decent condition for $600 these days.

Even if you did find one at that price it would require a $150 CLA at the very least.

 

The GX is great -- much better than my old 3.5F. The lens is the best MF lens I've tested -- beats my SL66 HFT Planar in many respects. It's the only camera I've ever had that can make a sharp 16x20 from a shot taken wide open. (I have one on my web site shot from the deck of a ferry at night after 9 p.m., hand held.) For travel and hiking, the SL66 got replaced by the GX. If you look for cameras of this quality with built-in meters, the GX doesn't seem overpriced.

Paul Roark, http://www.silcom.com/~proark/photos.html

 

Get a "blad" from Robert White for the same money and be happy for years to come!

 

Sorry,

Robert White wants $2700 for the 501cm. Delta International will sell you one for about $2300 or so. http://www.deltainternational.com

Or do as I did, pick up a decent used model and send it to Hasselblad USA for a complete overhaul. I now have a first class camera that will likely outlive me for ~$1400 total investment. BTW I have two rollei TLRs and there is just no comparison. The Hassie is just a little bigger than the rolleis and I'm carrying it with a contax G and 4 zeiss lenses for travel. It doesn't get much better than this.

 

I love my GX.

I have a 3.5 Automat X and a GX, as well as some Zeiss/Contax 35mm gear.
The Automat has been in my family for 40 years or more and still works
perfectly. I expect my GX to last that long as well. No normal-perspective
camera, in 6x6, including Hassy, yeilds results as nice as from a GX,
in my humble opinion.

First, let me dispell a few myths:

A new GX has what no F has - a new, pristine lens with the best contemporary coatings available.

A GX is NOT "plasticky" at all! To the contrary, it's almost entirely made of metal. New Hassies have much more plastic than new GX's.

A GX is not a "collectors item" (well, at least if it isn't some gold-plated, ostrich-skinned version), it's a real Rolleiflex that is meant to be used!

On the fabled post of GX flaws(?) or pros/cons:

The GX has full and half stop clicks. -***TRUE.

The GX requires a battery. - ***FALSE; only the meter does.

The GX has minimal internal baffling in the lens chamber. - ***No more, no less than my Automat.

The GX's film knobs will not lock in the "out" posistion. - ***A deal-breaker for sure!

The GX's back will not remove-easily. - ***True, but who uses a Rolleikin these days?

The GX does not have the mirror or lens in the waistlevel finder - ***True, but I've never used it on my Automat. It's not a big deal. It still has a "sports finder", by the way.

The GX has a different neck strap system - ***So?

The GX has numbers and letters that are painted on rather than etched - ***Only partly true, and I've never seen any wear on any lettering.

The GX does not have a flash sych cord lock. - ***I don't use flash, but the GX has VASTLY better flash abilities (off the film flash control) than any other TLR.

The GX's meter is centre wieghted-a wide spot meter. - ***the GX meter hardly a "center-weighted" meter, it's a smallish spot, just about the right size, and it is the BEST!!!

The GX requires that filters be applied to the viewfinder bayonet to determine the compensation factor for the meter if the filter factor is not known. - ***True, but this is only an issue with polarizers. People who use TLR's tend to be purists. They can handle a few issues like this.

The GX has only X synch. *** won't comment on this since I use natural light only.

The GX does not feel like an F. Although a very high precision camera,
it does not have the same silky smoothness overall that characterises
the F and previous Rolleiflexes. *** Total B.S.! The GX is every bit as "silky smooth" as any Rollei.

A few additional comments comparing the GX to my Automat, etc:

The GX has a modern bright screen with a micro-prism/split-image prism. I always use the split-image prism for best focusing, and the bright screen provides excellent framing. The Automat's fine ground glass (ruled) is easier to focus than the frenel portions (as opposed to the prism aids) of the GX screen, but only in bright light and while using the magnifier.

The GX is much heavier and feels more sturdy than the Automat.

The Seiko shutter is faster but louder than the Automats Synchro Compur.

The GX, wide open, is great, and at f/5.6 or 8 is heaven! Load a GX with Velvia or Reala, or even Tri-X, and prepare to be blown away!

Finally, the Rollei is a classic's classic. Using it is like caressing a beautiful woman - the lenses are even shaped like a womans body. What could be better?

-Grepmat

 

Darn. Sorry about the lack of formatting. It looked correct in the preview page.

-GM.

 

Thanks for all of the input. I took the plunge over the weekend, buying the GX at Ken Hansen in NYC (a really great shop, by the way). Due to the very high price achieved by my 2.8F on eBay, I only had to kick in a little extra. I have run about a dozen rolls of film through the camera (primarily head shots for a musician), and here are my impressions: The negatives are VERY sharp, certainly at least as good as the Xenotar on my 2.8F. The color saturation looks a little better and, in mono shots, the edge acutance looks significantly better. I assume that these improvements are due to the superiority of the coatings on the Rollei lens (and concomitant flare reduction). The meter is superb, yielding exposure values identical (in most case) to those achieved by careful spotmetering with my Pentax. The TTL worked flawlessly. As for ergonomics and finish quality, I think the GX is just as solidly built as the F, if not more so (it is heavier anyway). The only problem I see (feel) is in the shutter release. It is far stiffer than the release on the 2.8F. Part of the "problem" flows from the necessity of having a two-stage release, with the first push activating the meter, and the second tripping the shutter. I have heard similar complaints about the M6 (which has a shutter button activated meter) release versus the smooth M3/2/4 release. This may sound like I am being overly critical, but I fear that the stiffness of the release may cause both unnecessary camera shake and (more important) may cause me to miss the "decisive moment" (especially important in portraiture, my primary use for the GX). I hope that it is only a question of practice (or perhaps running the camera in). I should add that I tried four or five examples, and I bought the best of the bunch. Apart from this one niggle, however,I am thrilled with the camera, and expect/hope that it will give me (and I will be around to give it) decades of good service. Thanks again for the comments!! (By the way, thanks to B+W and Heliopan for making filters and hoods in Rollei Bay sizes).

 

You've got me thinking I should get a GX.

But I tried to find Ken Hansen's web site or contact info via the web and drew a blank. Could you please forward it to me?

Thanks much.

 

Ken Hansen 212 317-0923

 

When you call Ken Hansen (if you haven't already), ask for Vico. He's great. I should also let you know that if you get the 2.8GX, KH has a beutiful bay 3 hood/filter/rolleinar set in original leather case. I was sorely tempted, but I already own a number of the components in the set. It would be a great addition to the camera. If you can, you should really stop in sometime. I am a camera store junkie, and think that KH is the best place in the world (with the possible exception of Pied Bull Yard on a GOOD day) for classics. P.S. I continue to love the GX. The pics are consistently sharp and wonderful. (Now if we could only convince Copal or Seiko to make a 00 shutter with a self timer escapement and an eleven blade diaphragm -- did I hear someone say SK Grimes retrofit?) P.P.S. Sorry if this sounds like a KH advert!

 

A few final points: (1) the shutter release is breaking in nicely; (2) I agree it's a shame Rollei has chinced on the waist level, but it was easy to replace the stock unit with an eye level-equipped version from a 2.8E I have lying around (I imagine I could even replace the leather and logo with parts from Marflex and make the old finder match the trim of the new camera -- but I'm not that type); the new lens is SO much sharper than the old!!

 

Roger -- the lens on the 2.8GX is NOT "so much sharper" than the lens on your 2.8E. They are absolutely identical save for the multi-coatings on the GX Planar. Otherwise, the lenses are as alike as peas in a pod.

 

To say that the lenses are identical "except for the coatings," is like saying a 911T and a 911S are identical "except for the engines." One of the most significant areas of improvement in lens design over the last fifty years has been the development of multicoatings. A modern mutlicoated version of even a great design like the Goerz Dagor will so significantly outperform its uncoated forbears that it is almost irrelevant to talk about their shared optical formulas. Coatings have a drastic effect on contrast performance, which in turn affects color saturation and, more important (especially for mono work!!), perceived sharpness. Where microcontrast is low, edge acutance will appear low, and the photographic will not appear sharp -- NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION IS!!!!! Many photography primers contain comparisons of a low microcontrast/high res photo next to a high microcontrast/low res photo. The latter ALWAYS looks sharper (even though in terms of actual resolution it is not). The Rollei HFT coatings, I think, are the best in the world -- better than T* (long in the tooth now) or Schneider's much vaunted "MC." An HFT multicoated lens will produce images of significantly higher apparent sharpness than any single coated Rolleiflex lens (Zeiss or Schneider) of any vintage (remember, except for those few fabled multicoated 2.8Fs [has anyone ever really seen one], all Rolleiflex lenses are single coated [or uncoated]). Now, please don't talk about shades. Absent a true compendium shade (one of the few accesories Rollei never made for the 'flex?), these do very little. Remember, flare steals sharpness even when you can't see it!! My advice to you is to do a comparison between a GX and a late F. Then we'll talk. Why do you think LF types pay thrice as much for a Gold Dot than a Red Dot? P.S. They deleted the FX thread just when it was getting good!!! No fair (after all, they left the moon landing hoax thread up for weeks!!!).

 

Roger
I would most strongly urge you to join the Rollei List and posit some of your thoughts there, as the membership of that List includes many thoughtful and knowledgeable souls who can respond to your thoughts better than I am able to do. First, I do own both a 2.8F and 2.8GX and use them interchangeably. Second, both Rollei and Zeiss state that there is no difference in performance between any version of the 2.8/80 Planar save for the better flare control provided by the multi-coatings on the GX's HFT optic. Third, "contrast" and "sharpness" are independent featurs: see Erwin Puts' website for discussion (he wrote the Leica Lens Compendium published by Hove). Fourth, there is no single "T*" or "HFT" process or, rather, the process is identical but the specific chemical bath used on a given lens is selected for that lens; at both Oberkochen and Braunschweig, multi-coating is a constantly evolving technology. Hence, you err when you suggest that Zeiss's T* is getting "long in the tooth", as it is identical to the Rollei HFT process save for the composition used on any given lens.
Marc

 

Marc -- I don't want to belabor these points in an already overlong thread, but . . . #1 I tried to make it clear that lower microcontrast (which a single coated lens inevitably will produce as compared to a MC version of the same lens) will not result in actual lower resolution, only APPARENT lower resolution. However, since APPARENT sharpness is presumably all we photographers actually care about, the phenomenon is VERY important to understand. No one, including Lord Irwin himself (who, kidding aside, does very fine work [although I don't agree with his conclusions about the new gigabyte film]), will dispute the fact that reducing microcontrast WILL ALWAYS MAKE A PHOTO LOOK LESS SHARP. The lower contrast shot might have better "tonality," "plasticity," "bokeh," or "[insert your own photo-mystical adjective," but it WON'T appear as sharp as an otherwise identical photo with higher microcontrast. I think it is important that the readers of the MFDF understand this point. But don't take my word for it -- do a little research (or experimentation). #2 No changes have been made in the T* coatings in at least seven or eight years. The HFT formula was refined as recently as this year. Perhaps Mr. Salomon could weigh in on this point.

 

Wait a minute! T* is almost permanently under further development here at Zeiss in Oberkochen. New optical glass types, new lens curvatures, the demands of certain aspheric surfaces, higher demands on resistance to abrasive effects, demands coming from all the various fields of optics where Zeiss is active in (microscopy, astronomy, cinematography, large screen data projection, night vision system, defence optics, to name just a few) keep our coating specialists permanently working on new developments.

 

Standard industrial practice in any company that wants to remain in business. (Old process and QC engineer here)

 

If I am correct in inferring that Herr Fleischer is a Zeiss employee working at the plant in Germany, I stand corrected about the status of T* (but I still think HFT works better!). I got my information from the US tech support staff. Specifically, I inquired about the currency of the coating on a Zeiss/Hasselblad 100mm f3.5. I was told that there had been no change in the coating since early to mid '90s. Perhaps the info was specific to that lens. Apologies to fine craftspeople and engineers at Zeiss!!

 

I have both 3.5E and 2.8GX. 2.8GX has LED TTL metering. It's much better. Frankly, if you can not afford $3,000 for the GX, go with the older model. If price is not the problem, I don't think anybody would prefer old over the new one.

 

I just purchased a Rolleiflex 2.8GX Edition (1929-1989) and am extremely happy with my purchase. I was a little apprehensive because of the reviews knocking this "collectible version" of the GX camera, or the GX camera itself. Having used the earlier Rollei TLRs, I knew the high quality of those, however after many experiences trying to find older ones in decent shape I started to look at the GX (Also, after adding the costs of a CLA and better screen I was looking at $1500 for a user camera). I paid $1975 for this mint 60 Jahre Rollei. REVIEW: Solidly built, meter right on, not plasticy like reported, bright screen, smooth precise focusing, very good finish to metal and aligator leather, all controls smooth, half clicks for f-stops, easy on/off clip system for strap, place to put film box end on back to remind what's in the camera, easy to read depth of field numbers (yellow on gray), and focus range numbers Meters and Feet, white and green, viewing sport finder, interchangeable hood and screen, magnifier, bright viewing screen, viewing screen meter LED's. ASA dial is perfect, can't imagine how it will go off setting as reported since it is very positive and clicks in, spool knobs don't stay up - I don't care, I don't see how that matters. Don't know what reviewers are talking about with difficult loading - this is the easiest MF camera to load I've ever used (have used Mamiya 645, Fuji Rangefinders, Hasselblad, Pentax 67, older Rollei TLRs, Rollei 6008). Put the spool in, pull the tab to the other spool, wind the crank to line up the arrows to the marks, close cover!! thats it. Try loading a Hasselblad someday just for fun. How is it not like the 60's and 70's F? The film crank seems not quite as buttery smooth, and I like the dark baffle system in the film chamber of the older Rollei's better than the foam of this model, but thats it. This is a much better camera to actually use to shoot pictures with than any Rollei I've ever used, except the Rollie 6008 SRC Prof. model which is awesome too. The only thing wrong is that this version of the GX is so gosh darn beautiful I've been treating it like a baby afraid to mark it up, I bought it as a user because of the low relative price compared to a new GX, I'll have to get over it unless I find a user regular GX to beat up!! You won't be sorry if you buy any of the GX's if they all operate like this one.

 

I'm glade Ed Hoey started this thread again. I don't know if the original contributors will drop by again, but I do wander how Roger Michel is doing these days with his GX.

The only TLR's I've ever owned are the Mamiya C33 and C330, with several lenses, at two separate times in my life. However, my dream camera has always been a Rollei 2.8F, but that soon changed to a 2.8GX. The only Rollei I've owned had a 75mm 3.5 Tessar. Not very sharp! A friend of mine who used to own a Rollei 2.8F was able to do some side by side comparison with a 2.8F Planar, and a 2.8F Xenotar. I have no idea what the specifics of his testing were, but his conclusion was that the Xenotar was not nearly as "sharp" a lens as the Planar. My guess is, that there are others who might take exception to that conclusion.

Even though the Rollei is not as flexible as my Mamiya's, I still wanted a Rollei for "Candid" photography. That is, moving around and taking pictures as they present themselves. I wanted to get the GX and put a prism finder on it. Get the largest micro prism screen that Rollei made for a bright easy to focus image. Additionally, I wanted the pistol grip, and a pair of Mutar Lenses. The 0.7 and the 1.5. These aren't as W/A and Tele as the Wide-Angle Rollei, or the Tele-Rollei, but they're good for the candid work I want to do. They're a bit expensive for ones in great condition, and I would assume there would be additional flare introduced, but I think with care, the advantages would offset the slight loss in quality. What I haven't verified is whether or not these Rollei Mutar's would fit on the GX. They did fit the 2.8F model.

Lastly, a fellow I knew in the military, showed me how to advance the film to the next frame by turning the wind lever only one-half turn. I would think this would be handy for the configuration I would like to set up. Anyone have experience with the Rollei/Prism Finder/Pistol Grip combo?

 

I have a couple of questions about the Rolleiflex 2.8 GX.

1. Does it have a direct vision sportsfinder and is it possible to focus while using this finder (I believe some versions of the Rolleiflex had a small prism that allowed viewing part of the GG)?

2. Is the 2.8 GX or similar still manufactured?

I thought that I didn't like TLR's due to their seemingly awkward handling, but I'm beginning to warm to the idea. I have owned a Yashica TLR and have been playing with a Seagull recently. The idea of a compact, robust 6x6 camera appeals. The reason I ask about the sportsfinder is that I am relatively short and sometimes need the higher eyepoint afforded by the direct vision finder.

 

the gx does not have the built in reflex finder assembly in the folding wl finder (the sports finder as it is called). i simply swapped out the original gx folding wl and replaced it with a folding wl from an f that does have the sports finder assembly. all old rolleiflex parts (that i can think of) and accessories work on the gx. the machining is the same. the gx is still made (or at least still widely available new). rollei's newest tlr, the fx, is identical to the gx except that it has retro cosmetics -- old style leather, old style strap lugs, old style logo, etc. the cameras are the same in all important respects. the fx is not yet widely available outside of japan. eli kurland in nyc may have one or two for sale. for the best price on a new gx, call ken hansen in nyc -- 212-317-0923. ask for vico and tell him roger michel from cambridge mass says hello. i bought a gx a while back. it is probably my avorite all-around camera for my personal use (well, after my 6x10 anyway). the meter is superb and the lens is a major step up from all the Fs i have owned. don't let anyone tell you that coatings don't matter or that zeiss doesn't tweak its designs each year. i won't belabor a much debated point, but for the build quality (truly a tank), the quality of the two lenses you get, and the quality of the meter, this camera has to go into the "steal" catergory at $2200 -- at least when viewed in terms of value for money. show me another MF system that offers an all metal camera, a high quality lens and a meter for two grand -- woops, you can't!! a similarl blad package would be four grand. and the rollei is a better camera for many tasks in GENERAL photography. good luck!!

 

mutars will fit on the rolleiflex gx or fx. i bought a set at jessops classic camera recently.

 

I recently was able to buy a Rolleiflex 2.8GX (Newton edition of some sort) with a new Rolleiflex 45 degrees prism, filters and a Rolleifix for $1400. Camera is in new condition. Having taken pictures with my Rollei 3.5F often, I am curious to see the difference now. I was first looking for an older 2.8F, but given these are difficult to get under the $1000 range nowadays, I consider myself lucky having found the 2.8GX, with the added advantage of the TTL metering. I prefer Rollei TLR above the heavier 6x6 or 6x7 cameras. They work much faster, and are easy to make handheld shots with. I got rid of my Mamiya RZ67 and Hasselblad 500CM this year. I don't need interchangeable lenses that often.