Rolleiflex 2.8 GX
Paul Sosa
photography.
The 2.8 GX has a better coated lens, light metering and presumably a
brighter focusing screen.
I realize I would give up the self timer (no big deal) and the rolleikin
capability (ditto)
Does anybody have working experience with the 2.8GX. Specifically how is
the build quality and other intangibles of the GX versus the early
Rolleiflex models. I would hate to give up the tank like construction of my
2.8C
Any comments would be welcome.
Jeroen Heijungs
wrote:
>The 2.8 GX has a better coated lens, light metering and presumably a
>brighter focusing screen.
>Does anybody have working experience with the 2.8GX. Specifically how is
>the build quality and other intangibles of the GX versus the early
>Rolleiflex models. I would hate to give up the tank like construction of my
>2.8C
Hurrah, another Rolleiflex TRL afficinado.
I started with a Ikoflex from my father, after that a Rolleicord from
my wife's father, and when i had enough money i bought myself a
Rolleiflex 2.8D from about 1955 (but kept al the others because they
are so nice). I think that is about the same as a 2.8C (no meter). The
2.8D is my truelove, it is very beautiful built, has the very good
Planar lens, very silent.
But as time goes by you want a built-in-meter, a newer and coated lens
etc. etc. So i bought a 2.8GX, almost unused for a reasonable price.
It really is a wonderful camera. BUT.....
I had planned to sell the 2.8D, but I don't. The 2.8GX is really a
newer camera in its features (light meter, coating), but also in its
disadvantages, the older camera is more "crafted" (if that is the
right expression), and more luxe (chrome finish instead of black
paint, semi-automatic film loading) then the newer. The FEEL is more
sturdy and smoother.
The better lens in the GX is noticeable in bright light, back light
and so on just as you would expect. The meter is very nice, very
simple but effective with 5 LED's (-1;-0,5;0;+0,5;+1) in different
colors.
But there is a difference of about 35 year between the two.
If you can afford the have them both, do it.
Succes
Jeroen Heijungs
The Netherlands
Paul Sosa
Thanks for the message. Your experience with the "history" of the
Rolleiflex is part of the charm of the camera.
If you please, can you also comment on several items.
First, is the focusing screen brighter?
How is the light meter engaged? Do you lightly depress the shutter or some
other method to start the meter? Is the meter accurate?
I know it is difficult, but explain if you can a little more about the
difference in feel between the two cameras.
Finally, which one do you use regularly?
I am glad that you confirmed my feeling about the lens. The 2.8 Xenotar
takes wonderful pictures, except in backlight where there is noticable
flare.
Thank you again
Paul Sosa
Los Angeles, California
Jeroen Heijungs wrote in message <36dcf09c...@news.xs4all.nl>...
David W. Pulaski
I have 2 2.8GXs and two 120/220 2.8Fs. After a few rolls, I actually
preferred the newer models! I always use a pentaprism and the LED readouts
for the meter inside the finder is great. I also like the fact that Rollei
dropped the self-timer and syncro levers, (you don't have to worry about
them!). The one thing I do like about the older units is the film feeler so
you don't have to line up arrows when starting rolls. The Planar lenses on
the 2.8GX are superb as is the build quality; but then again, these ARE
still Rolleis! If I get a chance to pick up another GX @ a good price, I'll
grab it.
David
Paul Sosa wrote in message ...
>I acquired a Rolleiflex 2.8C one year ago and have become hooked by TLR
>photography.
>
>The 2.8 GX has a better coated lens, light metering and presumably a
>brighter focusing screen.
>
>I realize I would give up the self timer (no big deal) and the rolleikin
>capability (ditto)
>
>Does anybody have working experience with the 2.8GX. Specifically how is
>the build quality and other intangibles of the GX versus the early
>Rolleiflex models. I would hate to give up the tank like construction of
my
>2.8C
>
Jeroen Heijungs
here we are again, with some comment on your questions.
>
>First, is the focusing screen brighter?
wich i regard as the only good screen, the 2.8GX had a screen with the
split round in the middle and i hate that, it is too dark for my
feeling, and to much flimmering . I have bought another screen for it
(the Boss screen) and that is much better, but there are also several
Rollei screens, even a very bright one (i think that is something like
the Acute Matte for the Hasselblad, if you can afford that will be the
nicest one, but it is rather costly, about $250 here in Holland).
>
>How is the light meter engaged? Do you lightly depress the shutter or some
>other method to start the meter? Is the meter accurate?
it turns off again. In the beginning you have to learn to depress only
halfways and not completely. I found the meter accurate.
>
>I know it is difficult, but explain if you can a little more about the
>difference in feel between the two cameras.
as i say that the 2.8D is more sturdy and smoother, it is not so that
the GX is NOT sturdy, smooth, beautiful and all. The GX is very well
made as far as i can see and feel, but 45 years ago things like this
were made even more beautiful, it just feels more silky, but perhaps
that is also due to 45 years of use, in about 35 years i can tell you
for the GX how it is working then. But really i think it is pity that
instead of the chrome linings they have made it black with paint which
is more sensitive to damage in the GX.
>
>Finally, which one do you use regularly?
so, due to personal circumstances i have had no or little opportunity
to do much shooting. I did use the 2.8D very much, but since i bought
the 2.8GX i did not have the opportunity. I plan to use them both, but
when i want to take only 1 camera i will take the GX because of the
built in meter and better coating. I think that in a studio like, or
at least controlled light situation (fill in flash), there is not much
difference in which one to use.
>
>I am glad that you confirmed my feeling about the lens. The 2.8 Xenotar
>takes wonderful pictures, except in backlight where there is noticable
>flare.
Xenotar, i think it is not a problem of the very beutiful lens, but a
problem of the coating (or lack of coating).
I hope this will help a little in your decisions, if you have more
questions, let me know.
Good luck
Jeroen Heijungs
email: Jeroen....@Het-Muziektheater.nl
The Netherlands