roger_michel Posted March 9, 2001 Share Posted March 9, 2001 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted March 9, 2001 Share Posted March 9, 2001 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"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry schmetter Posted March 9, 2001 Share Posted March 9, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus_smith Posted March 9, 2001 Share Posted March 9, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_hicks___ Posted March 9, 2001 Share Posted March 9, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mostly sports Posted March 10, 2001 Share Posted March 10, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwstutterheim Posted March 10, 2001 Share Posted March 10, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altaf Posted March 10, 2001 Share Posted March 10, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altaf Posted March 10, 2001 Share Posted March 10, 2001 <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"><html><head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.75 [en] (Win98; U) [Netscape]"> <title>makeapost</title></head><body> <br>Roger you are in luck, I was on the rollei list a while back when amember made this post, I believe the member was named todd and thiswas the url<p>http://digistar.com/rollei/1999-11/0010.html<br> <br> <p>The GX has full and half stop clicks.<br>The GX requires a battery.<br>The GX has minimal internal baffling in the lens chamber.<br>The GX's film knobs will not lock in the "out" posistion.<br>The GX's back will not remove-easily.<br>The GX does not have the mirror or lens in the waistlevel finder toview<br>focus for the sport finder.<br>The GX has a different neck strap system<br>The GX has numbers and letters that are painted on rather than etched<br>into the metal. ie the distance scales on the focus knob.<br>The GX does not have a flash sych cord lock.<br>The GX's meter is centre wieghted-a wide spot meter covering a bitover<br>the central microprism area.<br>The GX requires that filters be applied to the viewfinder bayonet to<br>determine the compensation factor for the meter if the filter factoris<br>not known.<br>The GX has only X synch.<br>The GX does not feel like an F. Although a very high precision camera,<br>it does not have the same silky smoothness overall that characterises<br>the F and previous Rolleiflexes.<br> <p>Hope this helps<br> <br> <p>Altaf Shaikh<br><a href="http://www.usefilm.com">http://www.usefilm.com</a><br>Projects for Photographers<br> <br> </body></html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted March 10, 2001 Author Share Posted March 10, 2001 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolan woodbury Posted March 10, 2001 Share Posted March 10, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_dewberry Posted March 10, 2001 Share Posted March 10, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shannon Posted March 11, 2001 Share Posted March 11, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul roark Posted March 12, 2001 Share Posted March 12, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene crumpler Posted March 12, 2001 Share Posted March 12, 2001 Get a "blad" from Robert White for the same money and be happy for years to come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene crumpler Posted March 12, 2001 Share Posted March 12, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grep_mat Posted March 13, 2001 Share Posted March 13, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grep_mat Posted March 13, 2001 Share Posted March 13, 2001 Darn. Sorry about the lack of formatting. It looked correct in the preview page. -GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted March 14, 2001 Author Share Posted March 14, 2001 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrestrikon Posted March 27, 2001 Share Posted March 27, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_salomon Posted March 27, 2001 Share Posted March 27, 2001 Ken Hansen 212 317-0923 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted March 27, 2001 Author Share Posted March 27, 2001 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted March 30, 2001 Author Share Posted March 30, 2001 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!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_james_small Posted March 31, 2001 Share Posted March 31, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted April 3, 2001 Author Share Posted April 3, 2001 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!!!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now