Rolleiflex 2.8 GX - Jammed Shutter Speed?

[Ian Leake]

I've just bought a 2nd hand Rolleiflex 2.8 GX from one of the larger UK dealers. Unfortunately the shutter speed dial is stuck at 30 and the shutter blades look as if they're damaged. The shutter seems to fire OK and the aperture dial works fine.

I'm not sure if I'm doing something dumb, so thought I'd ask for help before phoning the dealer in the morning and losing my temper with them.

Question 1: can anyone think of a "user error" that may cause the shutter speed to appear stuck at 30?

Question 2: the tip of the front blade of the shutter is bent outwards slightly, and the tip of the second to rear blade is bent slightly inwards. Is this normal? Or would I be right in assuming that someone's botched a repair job?

Many thanks in advance for your help. Unfortunately I won't be able to answer follow up questions because my wife is demanding I come to bed

Ian.

 

[jon koss]

The bend in the blade is normal for late 'Flexes. Fear not. Can you be more specific - what exactly do you mean when you say the shutter speed "appears" stuck at 30?

Thanks,
J

I've just bought a 2nd hand Rolleiflex 2.8 GX from one of the larger UK dealers. Unfortunately the shutter speed dial is stuck at 30 and the shutter blades look as if they're damaged. The shutter seems to fire OK and the aperture dial works fine.

Question 1: can anyone think of a "user error" that may cause the shutter speed to appear stuck at 30?

Question 2: the tip of the front blade of the shutter is bent outwards slightly, and the tip of the second to rear blade is bent slightly inwards. Is this normal? Or would I be right in assuming that someone's botched a repair job?
Ian.

 

[George Papantoniou]

I just got my 1959 2.8 F back from its first repair (in its 47 year long life) and it was the shutter that was jammed. The repairman fixed the shutter, some broken spring in the cocking mechanism and replaced a broken pin where the mechanism that locks the back shut is situated. It cost me 250 Euro (300 bucks) but now its good as new. Considering that I bought it for 600 euros and now it is valued at something like 1200 (I think), I don't mind giving the money for the repair...

The GX incorporates plastic elements in its mechanisms (I don't know exactly where) and is considered to belong to an inferior class than the (superior) 2.8 F that ceased to be produced in 1980 or something. I guess that a visit to the doctor wouldn't harm yours too, though.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I'm not sure if I'm doing something dumb, so thought I'd ask for help before phoning the dealer in the morning and losing my temper with them.
QUOTE]
I wouldn't lose my termper, my guess would be that the camera has had a generous thump in transit, but you are obviously entitled to repair or replacement under guarantee.

 

[Ian Leake]

I wouldn't lose my termper, my guess would be that the camera has had a generous thump in transit, but you are obviously entitled to repair or replacement under guarantee.

I've talked to them and they're taking it back for repair. So all being well it'll be as good as new when I see it next.

Of course you're right David. Getting angry doesn't usually help resolve things. It was just a figure of speech

 

[Helen B]

...
The GX incorporates plastic elements in its mechanisms (I don't know exactly where) and is considered to belong to an inferior class than the (superior) 2.8 F that ceased to be produced in 1980 or something.
...

Plastic parts? I'm horrified. Now I know why I can't take any nice pictures with my GX. Same as my SL 66 - that's chock full of plastic parts.

As far as purely personal opinions go, mine is that the F and the GX are just different. Neither is 'superior' to the other - each has its own advantages. They are both superb cameras. I'm sure that you will enjoy using it, Ian. The metering is excellent, the HFT coated lens is excellent, and it is lighter than the F. I bought mine second-hand in '97 and I've been very happy with it.

Best,
Helen

 

[Donsta]

I'm in the same boat as you Helen - I'd better throw my FX into the trash - plastic parts! A real pity because I much prefer the flare resistance of the lens over any 'Flex I've ever owned and I love the metering and flash capability with the Metz unit... Everytime I hear this sh@t about the inferior build of the FXs and GXs, I just laugh. The first thing to give a heap of trouble on those old Fs will be the 12-24 autosensing... By the way George, all those parts which needed replacing on your "superior" camera are METAL - makes you think.....

 

[avandesande]

send all your plastiky rolleis to me ; )

 

[George Papantoniou]

I'm in the same boat as you Helen - I'd better throw my FX into the trash - plastic parts! A real pity because I much prefer the flare resistance of the lens over any 'Flex I've ever owned and I love the metering and flash capability with the Metz unit... Everytime I hear this sh@t about the inferior build of the FXs and GXs, I just laugh. The first thing to give a heap of trouble on those old Fs will be the 12-24 autosensing... By the way George, all those parts which needed replacing on your "superior" camera are METAL - makes you think.....

Let's have a talk about all this in 40 years from now, no ?

by the way, I am sorry that I offended all you happy GX/FX owners... keep up loving them (and don't forget to always keep extra batteries for the meter

ps. never had any problem with the film autosensing...

 

[Donsta]

I tell you what, in 40 years time, when there has not been 120 film available for at least 10 years, I will pay you $50 for your ancient F. By them I am 100% certain the autosensing would have given you more trouble than the camera is worth anyway... BTW, the meter on the new Rolleis is great - and you can actually buy LR44s at most convenience stores around the planet these days. What sort of meter do you use? No battery? Then I expect you think the selenium cells going to last for ever too?

 

[George Papantoniou]

I tell you what, in 40 years time, when there has not been 120 film available for at least 10 years, I will pay you $50 for your ancient F. By them I am 100% certain the autosensing would have given you more trouble than the camera is worth anyway... BTW, the meter on the new Rolleis is great - and you can actually buy LR44s at most convenience stores around the planet these days. What sort of meter do you use? No battery? Then I expect you think the selenium cells going to last for ever too?

Of course there will be 120 film in 40 years from now... if not, what will you be using in the 2,8F you're going to buy (for 3000$) when your 2,8GX will have rested its soul forever ?

The selenium cell has lasted without batteries at least until now... I can always guess the correct exposure when there will be no more batteries available for my handheld meters.

I guess that we would be able to go on like this forever (even longer that my 2,8 F will last, which is long enough

 

[Donsta]

"...I almost sleep with my cameras... I woudn't scratch them in my worst nightmare. I am what you would call a sick camera - fetishist."

My interest in cameras is as tools for making photographs - as a tool for making photographs, the GX/FX is way superior to the F in two ways - far better lens (the multicoating makes a big difference to flare issues) and far better metering. Sorry, but that's the end of the story.