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).