Rolleiflex GX - should I.......?!

[RezaLoghme]

With some Sunday man-math, I geniously calculated that if I eschew buying a much-recommended C330 (in good shape and with some preventistic CLA: 600-700 EUR), a not-so-much-recommended "Teutonic 500 EL/M" in the form of a Rolleiflex SLX (in good shape and with some preventistic CLA: 600-700 EUR), and a sometimes-recommended-sometimes-seen-as-overrated Yashica 124G (in good shape and with some preventistic CLA: 400-500 EUR), I am gently approaching Rolleiflex GX territory.

I understand that the camera is somewhat polarizing. Cherished for its TTL exposure meter, its clean design and its updated lenses, but loathed for some alleged shortcuts which, in day-to-day reality of a photographer, might or might not show as being really important. Furthermore, its still quite robust (asking) price (although a bargain when compared to some of the in-demand 35mm RF cameras of a certain manufacturer) might lead so a bit of "sour grapes" bias (SGB) amongst the photographers, denouncing it as somewhat of a "dentist's camera".

I would like to hear from GX users/owners here in this forum: why did you decide to specifically buy a GX, would you buy another one, what are the little things that you would wish to magically disappear in daily usage, and what else do I not know?

 

[JPD]

I have the F model and older, but no GX. The TTL metering should be good, so you don't need a handheld lightmeter. The viewing screen is very bright (seen it myself), and the lens should be at least as good as the 2,8F Planar, but with more modern coatings. The GX lacks the automatic film feeler mechanism, but it's just one less thing that can break. One thing I would miss is the selftimer. The Rolleiflex had a selftimer since 1937, so removing it was a step backwards. The lens "retaining ring" with the lens data is glued on. The back is from the cheaper T model, but they didn't have the tooling for the F model back.

There were some changes mid-production, like going from a rubberised focus knob to the F-style metal, The strap lugs changed to use alligator clips and in a more balanced position. Some have the Synchro-Compur shutter, but after it was discontinued the cameras got Seiko and then Copal shutters.

I have never been tempted to buy a GX or FX since I prefer to use a handheld meter anyway, and I sometimes use the selftimer on my Rolleis. But if you like TTL metering and don't have use for a built-in selftimer, then it might be a fine camera.

 

[GregY]

I've never been tempted by the GX. I think you can get more for your money without the internal meter.

 

[BrianShaw]

Not a GX user/owner, but I wholeheartedly support your desire. I seriously considered on but couldn't, and still can't, justify another MF camera.

Now... if it still had the EVS interlock I might be more tempted. Talk about a step backward. Hee-hee. Now that's polarizing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

So for the OP the Rolleiflex GX is the OP's Hasselblad. OP enjoy you heart's desire.

 

[Pieter12]

Not sure about the Rolleiflex GX being even close in price to any of the previously-mentioned cameras. They seem to be going for $3-5K.

 

[RezaLoghme]

It was meant in a cumulative way.

 

[Pieter12]

It was meant in a cumulative way.

Meaning you could buy all three cameras for the same price as one GX?

 

[ic-racer]

Not sure about the Rolleiflex GX being even close in price to any of the previously-mentioned cameras. They seem to be going for $3-5K.

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[RezaLoghme]

It was meant in a cumulative way. Instead of buying all three TLRs i listed, why not go for just one, the GX?

 

[JPD]

It was meant in a cumulative way. Instead of buying all three TLRs i listed, why not go for just one, the GX?

If the TTL-metering is important, go for it. But for less than half the price you could get the late "white face" 3,5F with the six element Planar. I like that lens more than the 2,8 Planar.

 

[beemermark]

"I understand that the camera is somewhat polarizing.". I'm at a loss about what is polarizing about any Rollieflex. I've had many, mostly the 2.3/3.5F, and you can make an argument for any of the models. I find the later models meter excellent and they are certainly cheaper than the GX. I'd love to have a GX to add to my collection but just don't see the advantage vs cost. The only disadvantage to a Rolleiflex is you are limited to a one focal length.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I am specifically talking about the GX, which, compared to other Rolleis, did not get much coverage and, maybe because of its last-of-line "special edition" frenzy, was seem by some merely as a collectors item, and not as a serious camera for war and protest reporters. Also its relatively robust current market price seems to provoke some people, triggering comments about it being overpriced and all. Furthermore, as the camera seemed to have a slightly different spec compared to its predecessor (esp. the deletion of the film start sensor), some saw it as a downgrade.

Source: the usual vintage film camera blogs/websites, and various forums (including this one). I even found a thread "Why do people insist on hating the Rolleiflex 2.8GX so much?", with many non-owners moving goalposts and nitpicking on details while ignoring major features such as the GX being much newer than an average 2.8F, TTL exposure meter, new lens coating etc.

I am somewhat intrigued by the model, but in some dark moments I also notice the oddity of its 6000 series parts bin construction (not sure it ifs true - but look at the focus knob). Then again, I love it that it seems to be the "TLR of all TLRs".

- one of very few TLRs with integrated meter (besides 124G)
- the only one(?) with TTL metering?
- built until 1995 (2.8F: 1981, when discounting the Platinum edition, 126G: 1986, C330: 1992), so its one of the newest TLRs available

- and then the irrational and technically irrelevant fact that it is made by the company who made TLRs a "thing"

About the asking prices - here they are around EUR 3k, give and take. Probably reflecting the point I made above. Very late 2.8Fs in top condition (late 70s/early 80s - 10-15 years older than any GX) are EUR 2k and upwards in my market.

 

[RezaLoghme]

If the TTL-metering is important, go for it. But for less than half the price you could get the late "white face" 3,5F with the six element Planar. I like that lens more than the 2,8 Planar.

Here they are EUR 1.2-1.7k, when buying from a halfway reputable dealer (the same kind of dealer I would buy a GX from).

You realise that a 3.5F was made until 1964, so those cameras are over 20 years older than any GX? So its a different camera, hence the different price.

 

[JPD]

Here they are EUR 1.2-1.7k, when buying from a halfway reputable dealer (the same kind of dealer I would buy a GX from).

You realise that a 3.5F was made until 1964, so those cameras are over 20 years older than any GX? So its a different camera, hence the different price.

The 3,5F was made until 1976, and the 2,8F until 1981, then the 2,8F Aurum in 1983 and 2,8F Platin the next year, and in 1987 the 2,8 GX was released. The GX wasn't that expensive when it came out, but the price rose sharply in the decades there after and special models for an even higher price were made so the company would survive. The price didn't follow the inflation.

The late 3,5F has a, excellent lens, automatic film feeler, selftimer and sturdier back, the 2,8GX has a little faster lens, TTL metering and can use a SCA flash adapter, lacks selftimer, has no film feeler and has the back from the budget T model. Both are good cameras, but I don't think the GX is worth three times as much as the 3,5F (or 2,8F).

Yes, the F cameras are older, but serviced they works just fine. My Original Rolleiflex from 1930 works like it did 94 years ago.

 

[foveon_m]

go with a C 330

 

[RezaLoghme]

Yes I looked at it. A 3.5F whiteface's asking price would be 50-60% of a regular GX (not special edition), from the same kind of dealer (reputation, warranty etc). Its not the same camera though, I think the electronic meter is the key differentiator, besides the age.

Maybe its like comparing a M4 with a M6TTL - same DNA, but different.

BTW The self-timer is not really important for how I am planning to use the camera (in fact, I cannot remember the last time I used the one on my Hasselblads). The film loading process seems to be similar to my A12/E12 backs, align the arrows with the dot, and from there the camera takes over.

 

[JPD]

Yes I looked at it. A 3.5F whiteface's asking price would be 50-60% of a regular GX (not special edition), from the same kind of dealer (reputation, warranty etc). Its not the same camera though, I think the electronic meter is the key differentiator, besides the age.

Maybe its like comparing a M4 with a M6TTL - same DNA, but different.

BTW The self-timer is not really important for how I am planning to use the camera (in fact, I cannot remember the last time I used the one on my Hasselblads). The film loading process seems to be similar to my A12/E12 backs, align the arrows with the dot, and from there the camera takes over.

Yes, the pros and cons are subjective, and so is what what we are willing to spend. I don't miss the film feeler when I load a Rolleicord, but then I don't miss the Planar or Tessar either. Sometimes the Triotar is my favourite lens. Maybe there's a danger in that, liking too many cameras and buying more and more of them.

 

[RezaLoghme]

The more I think about it, the better the "M6 TTL" analogy fits here. A camera with a long lineage, upgraded to modern spec at the very end of its life. Overrated? Maybe. Overpriced? Certainly, for what it is. Unique? Definitely.

 

[Alex Varas]

From my personal experience as repairman.

Strictly speaking about how it’s done, the GX is as ‘crap’ as the T, meaning the winding/counting is the same and using less quality materials than F versions.
Shutter in GX is as good as F models.
GX’s screen is really good but all screen can be changed.
The light meter in the GX is really good, lens as good or better than F models due newer coatings. Meters on last F models are usualy still ‘fine’.
I had a client using a GX professionally and he was delighted with the camera.
If you take the GX/FX for CLA you just assume the skin wont be as smooth and good as before, it’s made of a kind of vinyl that basically marks will be there, no matter how carefully you do it.
The focusing knob in the GX is more comfortable than F versions IMHO. Slightly bigger, I think making the Rolleiflex a bit less elegant as other 2.8F

If you can get a GX in hands, much better.
If you think one day you will buy a GX, just go for it before buying/selling another 3/4 TLRs.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Thank you, Alex.

" using less quality materials than F versions." - there is metal/steel, and leatherette, and plastic (and glass). Where did they skimp on quality?

"the GX is as ‘crap’ as the T, meaning the winding/counting is the same" - I have never used a T, what do you mean by that?

"If you think one day you will buy a GX, just go for it before buying/selling another 3/4 TLRs." - being brutally honest, yes, I would usually buy and sell and hum and ho, knowing that I want the real one, not the spotty chubby little sister.

Just to have a point of reference, my main camera is the Hasselblad V System which required semi-manual loading/winding of film backs, does not have a meter, and is f*ing expensive (a kit with 80mm lens, all CLA's and in good shape is EUR 2-3k), but of fine build and a very good tactile/haptic quality.

(Taking your input into account, I will have a look at mint-y 2.8Fs , if they exist).

 

[dpurdy]

Not a GX but I do own an FX. I am not sure what all the differences might be but I think they are pretty much the same. I also have a very late 2.8F whiteface with the Xenotar. It is from the 295xxx series which was the last of the 2.8Fs. I have had both cameras serviced by Fleenor though as I understand it he no longer works on the newer cameras. With the FX I had him install a Maxwell screen and adjust the infinity focus service the transport. He has had the 2.8F on multiple occasions for basic adjustments like transport and shutter speed. I have owned the FX since I bought it new about 7 years ago. I have used as my travel camera to Mexico and Canada and multiple times to the Oregon coast. I have put a fair amount of film through it. To this day the FX seems like a brand new camera. A little wear to the chrome edge on the back but that is it. It is much easier and smoother in focus and transport than the 2.8F ever was or is. The best thing about it in my opinion is the HFT coating. It is very flare resistant, my previous 80mm Planar Fs were not nearly as good... which is why I ended up with the Xenotar version. I can't speak to the FX meter because I have never used it and don't keep a battery in the camera. It has no self timer apparently because the meter wiring didn't leave room for it. I only use it on the F when I forget my cable release. The FX shutter speeds have always been perfect and still are.

I just realized my math is wrong and time is flying by, I have owned the FX more like over 12 years.

 

[RezaLoghme]

"To this day the FX seems like a brand new camera."
Thank you, dpurdy, that is what I like about the late models (GX, 501C/M etc)

 

[BrianShaw]

... the spotty chubby little sister.

You'd probably get a very big surprise with this choice... in the most positive way.

I'll wait for Alex to further expand on his exprience with the GX quality "issue" yet I've read that before. It likely is the difference between the very refined fit-and-finish of the Compur internal parts versus the rather industrial fit-and-finish of the Compur shutter internal parts, writitng specifically of LF shutters. Whil;e there is a noticable difference, both are highly reliable.

 

[Dan Daniel]

From my personal experience as repairman.

Strictly speaking about how it’s done, the GX is as ‘crap’ as the T, meaning the winding/counting is the same and using less quality materials than F versions.

Damn, that's disappointing. I guess someone found the bin of old Rollei Magic parts, eh?