I have a played with a GX and the meter annoyed me. It is so sensitive such
that as you adjust framing the LED lights flash and change colour like a
psychedelic mindstorm. It is a distraction from framing when you start worrying
about how accurately you are metering the subject. Worse with a contrasty
subject.
The pocket 35SE/35TE and 35LED cameras are similar but having a wider metering
angle, not so annoying.
The selenium meters of the old series cameras were great for what they were
expected to do and with a bit of user judged intervention, accurate exposures
were the norm.
If I was to use a GX, I'd remove the battery and use a separate meter for
difficult lighting and sunny 16 for the majority of lighting. Transparencies
need more care but the selenium meter on my 2.8F still provides accurate
metering for those too.
A long time ago it was suggested that the GX was built down to the standard of
the Rolleiflex T to reduce construction costs when compared to the Automat
series design.
John
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of David Stumpp <photos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:09:34 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: 2.8 GX
I’d second Javier’s assessment. I’ve never owned a GX, but I got to play with
one, once, and I’d already been using a 2.8F and 3.5F for years. I, as well,
didn’t care for the light meter, but, to be fair, I’d removed the meters from
my Fs in favour of a spot meter anyway. I might also have described the camera
as not having as solid and sturdy a feel as previous generations, but Javier
put it much more tactfully. Not as refined. Up to that point, I had intended to
eventually purchase a GX, but handling one made me realise that I could save
quite a lot of money and continue to be perfectly happy with my other TLRs.
Dave
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Javier Herraiz Veliz <javierherraizveliz@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:49:11 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: 2.8 GX
Many years ago I had a Rolleiflex GX that I used along with my 3.5F Planar.
The camera feeling and handling were like a classic Rollei, but not as refined
as the F. I found no difference in optic performance, but I only shot B&W. I
was not especially fond of the lightmeter. If I remember correctly, it had red
leds that warned you of over or underexposure, but not for how much. Not until
you were under ½ stop of correct exposure, that the red led turned orange. All
in all a fine camera, but I did not find any real advantage over the F. I ended
up selling the GX and keeping the F.
Javier
El vie., 24 ene. 2020 a las 20:10, CarlosMFreaza
(<cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>>) escribió:
PS: The GX/ FX is a simplified F camera from the mechanical point of view,
however it required a new tooling significant investment to manufacture the
parts to install and to adapt the coupled electronic lightmeter. It also
required some minor changes when Seiko and Copal shutters replaced the Compur
shutters.
Carlos
El vie., 24 de ene. de 2020 09:05, CarlosMFreaza
<cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>> escribió:
As I commented here several years ago, a photographer friend of mine had a GX
and I used it several times when I visi him in Brazil. The GX Planar was made
from the tooling to manufacture the Planar for the F Platinum about 1985. Carl
Zeiss did not manufacture the 2,8 Planar for the Rollei TLR from 1973 and
needed a new tooling and to train employees to manufacture it again, similar
for Gossen and the lightmeter, it was the reason for the Platinum high price.
Rollei had used the stock parts for the F Aurum in 1983 and decided to do the
Platinum due to the Aurum success. This way, after the Planar for the Platinum,
the new tooling was used for the GX Planar from 1987, it was made by Rollei
under CZ license. The GX Planar is the same Planar used in previous TLR models,
however it has the HFT multicoating process, it's the only 2,8/80 Planar for
the Rollei TLR with HFT, it means an improvement for the lens microcontrast
under certain lighting conditions, anyway it is not a substantial difference
regarding single layer coated Planar's, the improvement is a very slight
increasing for the light transmission because this Planar has five elements
only, the multicoating advantages are more perceptible for more complex lenses
like the WA lenses.
The GX/FX cameras and their Planar lenses are newer than classic TLR Rolleis
and it could be a substantial difference sometimes today. Anyway, GX/FX are F
simplified cameras, they don't have the automatic film feeler mechanism, they
don't have the automatic DOF indicator, they don't have the self timer and the
back lock looks a Rolleicord one, they cannot use the Rolleikin for 35mm film;
the later versions have Seiko and Copal Japanese shutters. GX/FX cameras have
a very good electronic lightmeter taken from the 6000 series and you feel a GX
like a true Rollei TLR un your hands.
Carlos
El jue., 23 de ene. de 2020 20:08, wayne pinney
<tennjed@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tennjed@xxxxxxxxxxx>> escribió:
Does anyone out there own/use one of the GX models. Given that both the GX and,
say, any other 2.8 Planar Rolleiflex are both in flawless condition, can one
expect that the results from the GX will be better than the earlier model?
I have been eyeballing the GX for a couple years now, but have always been put
off by additional cost. Now, for some reason, I am considering it again. Some
of the photos on Flickr, from GX, seem amazing. Is the Rollei HFT Planar a
substantially better lens than earlier Planars?
Thanks for any benefit of your experience.
Wayne ---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subscribe at
rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org<//www.freelists.org>
- Unsubscribe at
rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org<//www.freelists.org>
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
