Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 57,953   Posts: 1,195,020   Online: 962
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    27
    Images
    11
    Hi Dennis,
    I also note that the film advance feels tighter on the FX and am glad to hear that it improves over time. Perhaps the camera parts simply need to be used and broken in. Removing the band aid at some point might improve mine as well. In researching my decision to buy an FX I read many posts by you on the internet and do appreciate your insight.

  2. #22
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,753
    Images
    37
    Yes I am guilty of spending too much time on the computer in forums. When I was thinking of buying an FX I couldn't find anyone in my part of the world who had one, so I had to buy one before I ever saw one except in pictures. I still have only seen the one I bought. But for that reason I try to give people who are considering buying an FX all the user information I can.
    I actually went to the trouble to take that steel tensioner out of the camera. It is held in only by 2 screws. The film is way too loose without the tensioner. The teflon band aid pulls right off like a regular band aid. It stays sticky so you could probably take it off and see if the tightness is less or if you like it better on you could put it back on. In my camera I can't tell that the band aid did any good at all. And I don't seem to be causing a wear mark on the steel without the band aid.
    Another change I made was to replace the rollers above and below the film gate inside the camera. I put in old stock chrome rollers. The reason I did that is because of the rough paint they used on the little mask connected to the rollers. that rough paint causes a jagged edge to your image. I prefer a smooth edge. I also figured out later that I could just file the rough paint smooth with a fine file.
    Dennis

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    345
    Oliver, I appreciate your (and of course others too) willingness to share your experience with the FX. In particular I find your little updates and corrections on the camera interesting.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8
    Just a quick update. I was previously deciding between a 2.8f and 2.8gx and finally found a 2.8f at a good price.

    After receiving the camera, I am absolutely in love with it and I am kinda tempted to buy another just in case something bad happens to it.
    This camera is a thing of beauty and I'm fortunate enough to have procured a copy in very good condition (and white face as well!). I think the 2.8f looks nicer than the 2.8gx/fx in terms of physical appearance, and I'm glad I chose the 2.8f.

    One of my favourite features is actually the selenium light meter, I really like how it is implemented. Reflected values are accurate compared to my sekonic, except the meter on the rolleiflex has a more limited ev range in low light (approx EV6 is the lowest it measures). All you have to do is glance down at the light meter reading, then adjust shutter and aperture to compensate on how you wish to expose. It's just so brilliantly simple compared to using a dslr.


    I would just like to thank everyone here, especially dpurdy who provided such helpful information.
    I am really happy with my new rolleiflex

    Btw, does anyone know where to get a simple strap for the 2.8f?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE:


 
                     

Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin