Rolleiflex FX

[ike k]

Just curious, how this TLR compare with the older TLRs such E,F,

etc? does it have better body and lens built? are they sharper, more

contrast, etc? and for users of this TLR (FX) what kind of

photography you do mostly with the camera? street, portrait, etc? or

only to be a collector item?.Man, their price is just way expensive

(around $3500), and if one could justified with the price and be

satiesfied with one lens only camera that is awesome!.

 

Ike

[fred_mueggelhopper]

$3500. for one Rollei TLR? Do you really need someone else to

answer this question for you? For this money you could have a

very nice MF system.

[martin_jangowski]

Personally, I wouldn't buy a FX (or GX) while you can get perfect Rolleiflex F TLRs for a fraction of the price. I own several Rollei TLRs made from the 50's to the 70's, and they are plain better made than the newer GX/FX. Ok, the newer models have workeable light meters (something I don't need... I prefer a handheld meter anytime) and multicoated lenses (this is a real plus, but not a really big advantage), but it is easily seen that the newer models a decendants from the Rolleiflex T, an economy model made from 1958. The F is just a class better in workmanship and precision, the optics are identical, and you can easy get a brighter screen for the F.<p>

 

Read Chris's Perez real life comparison between a Rolleiflex 3.5E (Xenotar), 2.8E with Planar, Mamiya 7 with 4/80 and a Hasselblad 500CM with 2.8/80 Planar CT*. Fasten your seat belts first ;-)<p> It is found <a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez//test/fourcameras.html">here</a>.

 

<p><p>Martin

[h._p.]

The Rollei FX is an attempt to cash in on Rollei's prestige with what would certainly seem to be a camera built down to a price. You have to ask why this camera lacks one of the Rolleiflex's main selling points: the auto load system.

[harry_zet]

for the price of a fx you could buy a 2,8f, a telerollei and maybe a good-user wide-angle rollei + a sekonic 398. and all of them are better built.

[mskovacs]

My 2.8E was listed in the late 1950's as costing about $350USD. Anyone care to comment on how that relates to modern day pricing?

[christopher perez]

$350USD for a 1950's 2.8E is near the bottom of the current market price range. I've seen this kind of price over the past two months for cameras had a few faint scratches on the taking lens. And I've seen people pay upwards of $650USD for the same model camera in mint condition with case and strap.

[larry_benjamin]

Hi,

I am a proud owner/user of a Rollei FX & a "as new" 1959 Tele Rollei & many others. I am a collector of fine cameras of all types (digital included.)I purchased my FX from Hong Kong for US$1998.00 brand new, 3 years ago with international warrantee.

OK...... how does it compare to the older Rollei's ? The lens is simply superb!! The amount of detail it renders is absolutely stunning,contrast is superb !! So far my gold standard but i haven't "pushed" my other notable lenses to the critical edge yet.

The viewing screen is brighter than the older Rolleis & the Of film TTL flash is definitely a plus.The metering system is not really TTL as it views through the viewing lens but it works........still slow (semi-manual) but more accurate than the old.

How does it fare with the quality of the old ?..........only 20 + more years will tell. How does the lens compare......... i think the modern lens coating definitely gives it an edge ?

Would i spend $3500 for one.......possibly not, as there are some fine cameras out there for that price........eh ! depends if i were rich!

Lots of views on value,practicality etc........I put my money where my mouth is, bought one & love it. Pro camera it is not (slow)......but what it puts on paper more than backs its heritage.

 

Just my 10c worth, however an educated, realistic evaluation from one who actually has owned/s both the old & the new.......not "guesses".

Cheers, Larry

[grepmat]

It seems that every time the Rollei GX/FX is brought up, a number of people who have never owned one come out of the wood-work and claim it's "plastic", based on some inferior model, a cynical attempt to cash in on the name, etc. None of that is true. What is true, in my opionion, is that Rollei is providing a gift to a select few customers who are romantic and different enough to want to purchase one of the finest and most storied traditional mechanical cameras still made. At its price (at least if you look around a little), you could try - and fail - to buy, for example, a new Hassy with an integrated meter, or a new Leica MP and any single new lens or, of course, any vintage Rolleiflex with modern multi-coatings and a modern meter. I would be proud to own an FX and believe that it is worth every penny.

[frank_philcox1]

You can get an FX for around $2000.00. Not chump change but not $3500.00 either. I have one and like it alot. The focussing screen is almost the equal to a replacement Maxwell screen (which I think says alot). The meter is fairly accurate. I hated carrying around a hand held meter with my older Rollei Tessar. The FX is not revolutionary. It is evolutionary. It is still very retro, very much a classic Rollei TLR, and that is its appeal. Don't let the naysayers bring you down - get a GX or FX and start shooting. I just saw a used GX in excellent shape at KEH for under $1500.00. I have had mixed feelings about Rollei's for a long time - had a few, dumped them. This one is a keeper. It has a unique appeal. You won't be using it all the time but you will use it - believe me.

[adrian_tyler]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004nuR

[caliber_60]

I have 8 Rolleiflexes. Including 4 Tele-rolleiflexes in new condition, 1 GX, 1 3.5F, 1 2.8F, 1 2.8F Aurum, 1 GX. I would spend my $$$ to buy the newest 2.8F you can get. Like the 2.8F Aurum. The build quality is just unbeleiveable. You can feel the massive weight comparing to GX. Maybe in reality there is not much difference in weight. Only thing I don't like is the gold color. It's pretty much sitting in the safe. 2.8GX has it's own Rollei lens. Not Zeiss lens(licensed) anymore. It has brighter screen and meter which is really useful. Older 2.8F pretty much retain it's purchase price now.

[mskovacs]

Chris I guess I should have said how does $350 in 1956 compare to $3500 in 2004?

[larry_benjamin]

Hi, In a nutshell......those of use who have used/purchased this camera (GX/FX... et al) have absolutely no regrets. The pleasure is not just in the phenomenal results but also the mystique of those notables of greater merit, whom have trod this ground before.

Cheers, Larry

[dale_dickerson2]

If you look at the photograph you will see that the Rolleiflex FX does have a Planar. Planar is made by Rollei and is a Zeiss.

 

 

http://www.rollei-usa.com/images/Rolleiflex_28FX.jpg

 

----------------------

As for the question would I buy a FX and recommend the camera? Sure I recommend buying one. I love my 2.8C Xenotar, which has a lens that is sharp, the large number of blades on the iris do improve some photographs. I think it is a great lens. However I also know from using my 6008's Planar, that the HFT coating is worth having for the color and contrast improvements. A FX is worth the price just to add the HFT on the lens. The TTL flash metering, and a good light meter are just extra plus.

 

As for the camera build issues, I have never (and I mean never) seen a poorly built Rollei MF camera. The FX may not have the robust body of the F, but the FX is a professional grade camera, better built than most any modern camera.

 

By the way you can use the Mutar on the FX, the HFT would only improve the contrast and color as compared to using the Mutar on a single coated TLR.

[christopher perez]

<i>Mike Kovacs , jun 03, 2004; 07:40 p.m.<br>

Chris I guess I should have said how does $350 in 1956 compare to $3500 in 2004?</i>

<p>

If I had the money and I could only buy one camera, the FX (or one of the $2500USD leftover GX at BHPhoto in NY) would be a wonderful purchase. In my mind its really a matter of if you want to spend that kind of money.

<p>

$2500USD or $3500USD can buy a boatload of mint used medium format camera gear these days. I know someone who paid less than $1200USD and bought a complete Mamiya RZ kit with two backs and four lenses. And I know someone who spent $2400USD on 5 Rolleiflex TLRs. Some mint. Some user grade. Some Zeiss. Some Schneider. All wonderful. All great to use.

<p>

But, if all I could buy was one camera and had the money (I know, I'm sounding like a broken record), a new Rolleiflex TLR would be it. There's magic in those cameras. I don't know where they put it. But its in there somewhere.

[geoffrey goldberg]

Hard to add to this list, but here are a few thoughts: I've had a Rollei 6003 system for

about ten years, and have loved it. I had a Hassy 500 before and the ergonomic difficulty

of that camera just didn't go away - the Rollei is far easier to use and to shoot.

 

But on the rare time that I travel, and don't have room for much gear, or weight, and don't

want to think about battery hassles, I was looking for something lighter and smaller. Given

middle age (49) and worsening eyes, rangefinders don't do the trick. And a good digital

set up (and for a Rollei user, that means it has to be really good) still is quite expensive.

And there is the hassle of keeping all those digital files organized, backed up... not a lot of

fun.

 

After looking high and low, I decided to get a good GX (around $2k, still in the box,

thanks Hadley!). Absolutely no regrets. Sure there are better buys, but for hand-held, 6x6

shooting, with good focusing screen, simple and with built in good metering (good, not

great!), I don't think it can be beat. You can walk down the street all day (Paris, anyone?)

and shoot and shoot and have crisp good negs that you can print forever.

 

Is it as well built as the older F? No, and if the F had a good meter I'd look at that too. But I

like the GX (and the FX). The sticky shutter was a drawback, but with more use, it loosens

up, and with the mini-release, its OK.... not butter, but workable. Its a bit lighter than the

F (I have my father's old D, and boy is it heavy!). The GX can be handheld to 1/30 without

shake and this gives you a lot of flexibility. So does the 2.8 lens.

 

Of course, I'm choosing some pretty (old-fashioned) particular values to optimize on, but I

want the ability to make a good 20x20 print, wihtout questions. So I take the GX, scan on

a really good scanner, and stay happy.

 

This is not the most modern workflow, but it is a good one. It won't get you on the cover

of the newest photo mags as being the hot trend, but it works and works well. I'm not

sure there are really better flows out there, either. Not ones that will stand the test of time

like this one. For what its worth, consider the GX (or the FX) as the portable travelling

Rollei. Its not for all things, but it does some things extremely well. If you need those, get

it. if not, go get something else.

 

Geoff