Could it be that you are talking about the "Expression" model? On Ebay, they all seem to have a softer/smoother skin, and all of them look as if it has been retrofitted (in a bad way).
Rolleiflex GX - should I.......?!
-
A
- Thread starter RezaLoghme
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Sekonic Digi-Spot L-488 Meter
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Nagaoka 4x5 Pinhole Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Rodenstock Eurygon 300mm f/4.5 a wet platers dream lens
- Started by varg
-
For Sale 8x10 Foma Retropan 320
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale FS: KW Praktina FX w/ 50mm f2.8 Zeiss Tessar. Repair, Display or Parts
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,307
- Format
- Medium Format
I've always preferred the Rollei Magic II to the T-model.
Sure they're both different from the standard layout Rollei established long ago but there's something especially nice about those flush toggles when loading/unloading film.
I bought mine because it came with an F-style WLF and I fell in love.
Sure they're both different from the standard layout Rollei established long ago but there's something especially nice about those flush toggles when loading/unloading film.
I bought mine because it came with an F-style WLF and I fell in love.
Go for it. The GX is the ultimate 1-body, 1-lens "do (almost) everything" camera. It will be your companion for life. Any price under 2k€ is very good - so good that there might be a catch. Be aware of it and get your hands on it and inspect it thoroughly before buying. If all it needs is a CLA, it still makes it a valuable offer I think.
I spent over 10 years shooting with only one camera, a 2.8 FX. A few years ago I found a GX and added this to the collection. The GX and FX are virtually the same except for 1) cosmetics, 2) the FX has the "old style" scissor strap attachment whereas the GX has more standard strap attachments, 3) there are variants in the shutter but all are good. My FX and my GX turn the shutter in the opposite direction, for instance.
The GX (or FX, for that matter) is often decried as a lesser Rolleiflex, usually by those who never got their hands on one. Sometimes you even see claims that it's made of plastic - which could not be further from the truth. The GX is as sturdy, well built and durable as any Rolleiflex A/B/C/D/E/F. (And yes, I have a 2.8E for direct comparison!) In my opinion a GX is even more durable: they have been produced in the 90's, have less mileage, and are unlikely to have been abused by press or wedding photographers.
The winding mechanism is derived from the T, which to me is a real advantage over earlier 'Flexes. No more film start sensor to go out of adjustment. It is much more reliable. And again, no it's not made of plastic.
The built-in light meter is very accurate and a blessing in the field. The field of measurement is close to spot. In 10 years of shooting I can barely remember of any wrongly exposed picture (and then it was due to user error). Having an integrated meter is always great in a lightweight setup like the Rolleiflex. One thing less to carry!
The lens is the best 80mm you can get on any Rolleiflex. Period. Multicoatings are a definite improvement over earlier Rolleis, unless of course you want a more vintage look in your pictures.
Bay iii filters can still be sourced new from Heliopan.
The only thing which could be missing is the self-shutter. I missed it a couple of times, but eventually decided I can live without. My Hasselblad does not have it either.
If you have specific questions, feel free to send them over. If you are near Munich at some point I'd be happy to show you mine and discuss over a beer.
I spent over 10 years shooting with only one camera, a 2.8 FX. A few years ago I found a GX and added this to the collection. The GX and FX are virtually the same except for 1) cosmetics, 2) the FX has the "old style" scissor strap attachment whereas the GX has more standard strap attachments, 3) there are variants in the shutter but all are good. My FX and my GX turn the shutter in the opposite direction, for instance.
The GX (or FX, for that matter) is often decried as a lesser Rolleiflex, usually by those who never got their hands on one. Sometimes you even see claims that it's made of plastic - which could not be further from the truth. The GX is as sturdy, well built and durable as any Rolleiflex A/B/C/D/E/F. (And yes, I have a 2.8E for direct comparison!) In my opinion a GX is even more durable: they have been produced in the 90's, have less mileage, and are unlikely to have been abused by press or wedding photographers.
The winding mechanism is derived from the T, which to me is a real advantage over earlier 'Flexes. No more film start sensor to go out of adjustment. It is much more reliable. And again, no it's not made of plastic.
The built-in light meter is very accurate and a blessing in the field. The field of measurement is close to spot. In 10 years of shooting I can barely remember of any wrongly exposed picture (and then it was due to user error). Having an integrated meter is always great in a lightweight setup like the Rolleiflex. One thing less to carry!
The lens is the best 80mm you can get on any Rolleiflex. Period. Multicoatings are a definite improvement over earlier Rolleis, unless of course you want a more vintage look in your pictures.
Bay iii filters can still be sourced new from Heliopan.
The only thing which could be missing is the self-shutter. I missed it a couple of times, but eventually decided I can live without. My Hasselblad does not have it either.
If you have specific questions, feel free to send them over. If you are near Munich at some point I'd be happy to show you mine and discuss over a beer.
To answer those questions more specifically:
Why did I chose one:
I was shooting with a Yashicamat 124G and wanted "the real thing"
I liked 6x6. (Still do, for that matter.) Wanted a reliable built-in light meter to travel light. I was looking at GX's on the used market but never pulled the trigger. At that time I was living in Japan, the euro vs yen was good, and I found a brand new FX in Tokyo for not much more than a used GX. To be honest I preferred the more "modest" looks of the GX over the FX, but a brand new camera won over a used one.Would you buy another one:
I did (a GX this time
)In daily usage:
I really cannot find much wrong to it...
The most annoying thing, now that I have a GX and an FX, is that the shutter speed dial turns in opposite directions on each. This disturbs my memory muscle every time I change from one to the other. Not an issue if you only use one.
After 10 years or so I decided I wanted to try other focal lengths. I briefly considered Wide and Tele Rolleis (the modern ones which are similar to the GX/FX, not the old ones). By then they were overly expensive. Besides, I did not see myself walking with two or three Rolleis attached to my neck. Would have looked kinda cool I'm sure, but I went for Hasselblad and its flexibility for much much less dough. That was the time (around 2014-15) when Hassy equipment was dumped for next to nothing. I still regularly use a Rolleiflex when I don't want to lug the Hassy, though.
What else:
see my above post
Last edited:
Thank you so much, etn!!! I agree with each of your statements!
With one exception - the "going rate" for a decent GX, from a dealer (warranty/return/reputation), seems to be somewhat around EUR 3000. Maybe negotiable? But that does not matter so much.
With one exception - the "going rate" for a decent GX, from a dealer (warranty/return/reputation), seems to be somewhat around EUR 3000. Maybe negotiable? But that does not matter so much.
Looks like your emotion, your "heart" just wants the GX.
So go for it.
By using it you will see whether you enjoy it. And you will see whether you enjoy it so much that you want to keep it.
And if you don't like it (so much) then, you will certainly be able to sell it again for the same price you have bought it. So no loss at all.
That is true.
But:
- one of very few TLRs with integrated meter (besides 124G)
- the only one(?) with TTL metering?
- built until 1995 so its one of the newest TLRs available
Are just facts, and they speak to me, too.
But:
- one of very few TLRs with integrated meter (besides 124G)
- the only one(?) with TTL metering?
- built until 1995 so its one of the newest TLRs available
Are just facts, and they speak to me, too.
You are right. Re-reading the thread I realized the 1.2 - 1.7k you mentioned were for an F. Indeed what I have seen is around 3000 EUR. It's a big amount of money but I don't see the value dropping in the future. Offer and demand
Unless of course you drop it but this can happen with anything.
PS. The Butkus site has the manual, if you want details on film loading. Not much different than your Hasselblad - just align the arrow with the red dot and be done with it. Over the years I never had a wrongly loaded film. The same cannot be said about my 2.8E... 
Last edited:
The meter of the GX cannot be compared with the 124G. They are a generation apart. The GX uses modern semiconductor technology and is much, much more reliable. The required 6V lithium battery is readily available. The 124G meter is similar to the tech used in Rolleiflex E and F, which probably has degraded over time. It needs an old mercury cell, which is not available anymore.
Not sure whether it is the only one with TTL technology but yes, they are rare. Please note that the metering is done through the viewing lens, not the taking lens! Therefore if you want to meter through a filter you need to place your filter on the viewing lens, take the reading, then move the filter to the taking lens.
It is certainly the only TLR with TTL flash metering. However the flash system is probably obsolete by now, in the same way as the flash system of Hasselblad 503CW is.
Thinking of which, due to the leaf shutter the Rollei has flash sync to 1/500s. This is just dawning on me as I write this. I never, ever used a flash with my Rollei. Why didn't I ever think about it? For some reason I always used the Hassy for flash. Now I have something new (and fun) to try. Thanks Reza
I understand why those facts speak to you. They spoke to me too.
Happy shooting with your new GX
By the number of Rolleiflexes I have serviced I can say the film detector is really sturdy and only if someone touches the screw that should adjust the detection it might not work fine, instead how the T and GX is made the winding/counting made me servicing that mechanism more often, let’s say is more prompt to malfunction due dry grease than a Rolleiflex 3.5A, which is almost twice older.
As well materials used in T and G models are less durable or the whole winding/counting mechanism is easier to be abused by force.
I checked and I have notes of at least two GXs I have done, one got some screws loose inside due vibrations and another with one piece of the winding worn out and I had to re-shape it. I’m not saying this doesn’t happen in F models, it’s just it happens more often in T and GX models.
www.flickr.com
Anyway the photos are made by you and the lens, which is excellent on GX models, having the light meter is a huge advantage and that meter works just fine.
Myself I have a Hasselblad 1000f just because the 80mm Ektar, I know mechanisms inside are more fragile than a in 500 system but I like more the lens and I go with it without problem, just being gentle with the camera and so far is working fine.
As well materials used in T and G models are less durable or the whole winding/counting mechanism is easier to be abused by force.
I checked and I have notes of at least two GXs I have done, one got some screws loose inside due vibrations and another with one piece of the winding worn out and I had to re-shape it. I’m not saying this doesn’t happen in F models, it’s just it happens more often in T and GX models.
Rolleiflex 2.8GX - A Bit Of Troubles.
Explore this photo album by Alex.Varas on Flickr!
www.flickr.com
Anyway the photos are made by you and the lens, which is excellent on GX models, having the light meter is a huge advantage and that meter works just fine.
Myself I have a Hasselblad 1000f just because the 80mm Ektar, I know mechanisms inside are more fragile than a in 500 system but I like more the lens and I go with it without problem, just being gentle with the camera and so far is working fine.
Last edited:
I owned a GX for a while. It was a great camera - great lens, great meter, bright screen. It worked just like it was supposed to work. Who could ask for more?
Was it built as well as the last of the F series? Maybe not, but it certainly didn't feel cheap to me. And there are still a lot of Rolleicords out there, so its not like it was a faulty design.
Later, I went through a period where I never used the GX, and then I stupidly sold it. One of my "camera regrets" in life.
Was it built as well as the last of the F series? Maybe not, but it certainly didn't feel cheap to me. And there are still a lot of Rolleicords out there, so its not like it was a faulty design.
Later, I went through a period where I never used the GX, and then I stupidly sold it. One of my "camera regrets" in life.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2012
- Messages
- 86
- Format
- Medium Format
FYI - I think there were at least two, maybe three different shutter releases used in the GX. The first one had a very hard two stage release, and notchy, hard to stay smooth at low shutter speeds. I had one, got rid of it, but was told later versions were changed. If you go this route, make sure to test it first.
In the end, I didn’t buy a Rolleiflex GX—and looking back, I think that was the right call. Beautiful camera, no doubt, but a TLR always felt a bit too much like cosplay for my taste. A bit performative, somehow.
Leica Ms, on the other hand, stay nicely under the radar. They do the job without making a scene. That suits me better.
Leica Ms, on the other hand, stay nicely under the radar. They do the job without making a scene. That suits me better.
Oh, all film cameras involve cosplay and performance If that’s your thing, and Leicas are certainly no exception. Rolleis and Leicas sure are nice cameras though.
-
- Steven Lee
- Deleted
I fully agree
Rob Skeoch
Advertiser
A funny story about the GX. I owned a Rollei T, which I loved for portraits but for some reason sold. So then I decided to buy a GX. There was a gold plated one on ebay... kind of a kit so I bought it. I used it for portraits for a number of years, and yes it was cool to have a portrait assignment and pull out a gold camera. However, the viewfinder/magnifier was never just right and I became tired of dealing with it. Also the GX was not as smooth a shutter release as I hoped and I often jerked the camera when firing the shutter. So in the end, I didn't really like the GX as much as the T.
Now I shoot portraits with the third version of the FT, the one with the 135mm lens. I like the length better for portraits anyway.
Now I shoot portraits with the third version of the FT, the one with the 135mm lens. I like the length better for portraits anyway.
Gold plated! Pics?
I bought (after using several older type of Rolleiflexes and Cords) in the 'end' the 3.5f type 5 (white face) - have 2 of them (one for color the other for b/w), because of the very high resolution of the six lens planar. I had the 2.8f before but found it too heavy and did hardly ever use the 2.8 stop.
Afaik, the later model FX has also the 6 lens planar (and of course the HFT coating); but since I don't miss using the 2.8 (still hava a 2.8A flex that I don not use), I stay with my 3.5f whities...
(over about 25 years I had about 16 Rolleiflexes and 8 Cords)
I don't know from own experience but some say the GX and FX feel plasticy compared to the older models....if you never had an older model, you probably won't mind the difference....
Afaik, the later model FX has also the 6 lens planar (and of course the HFT coating); but since I don't miss using the 2.8 (still hava a 2.8A flex that I don not use), I stay with my 3.5f whities...
(over about 25 years I had about 16 Rolleiflexes and 8 Cords)
I don't know from own experience but some say the GX and FX feel plasticy compared to the older models....if you never had an older model, you probably won't mind the difference....
The FX has the classic five element Planar. Sell the 2,8A if you don't use it? Many Rolleiflex users prefer the Tessar for its character, and the 2,8 version is sought after.
I had two of these in very (really) beautiful condition, a type 1 and type 2; few weeks ago sold the type1 and still have the type 2; perhaps I will sell it indeed (and this one has the very very rare sunhood and the (also quite rare) matching leather case. ....
Since you have the rare lens hood for it maybe you should keep it after all and use it more? It's a special camera and the 2,8 Tessar should perform little differently from the common 3,5 and add more character compared to the Planar/Xenotar.
I agree with what you said about the 2,8F being too heavy and that you didn't have much use for the larger aperture, and that's the reason I sold my 2,8F. The next Rollei I will load with film is a 1939 Automat. I like the Tessar and how lightweight the camera is.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,307
- Format
- Medium Format
What is unusual about the lens hood for these models?
How likely are you going to DEEPLY regret selling one of these?I had two of these in very (really) beautiful condition, a type 1 and type 2; few weeks ago sold the type1 and still have the type 2; perhaps I will sell it indeed (and this one has the very very rare sunhood and the (also quite rare) matching leather case. ....
Its the only hood that was made for this type of Rolleiflex; the 'regular' bay1, bay 2 and bay 3 hoods do not fit. Since this special hood is very hard to distinguish from the regular hoods, and therefore not as such offered by (regular) sellers, it is very hard to find if it is not provided by the camera as such.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |