This topic of FX/GX vs older models has come up several times. I always jump in with my opinion because I have both a 2.8F and 2.8FX. I got my FX new in 2008 and it is the older brown leather type with the chrome edge trim on the back door. I think the later models with the black leather and the black door edges are much better looking but beyond that they are unchanged until the recent FX-N version.

Re the shutter stiffness, yes it has a bit of a hitch in it from the function of turning on the meter. It isn't as buttery smooth as the older release. However personally I have gotten used to it and found the sweet spot in pushing it in where it is just about to release the shutter and from that spot it is very easy to do smoothly. It isn't that the FX shutter release is so bad or worse than other new cameras, it is just that the older shutter release was so buttery smooth.

I have just recently gotten my 2.8F (very late white face version) back from Harry Fleenor. He had rebuilt my shutter and film advance. Still the FX is much easier to advance the film and it is also much easier to turn the focus of the FX. Both those functions are almost unbelievably effortless.

As to the auto feeler. I much prefer not having the auto feeler. You line up the arrow with the red dot. It works great. That is why no other camera makers made an auto feeler. It is not worth the expense and needs to be kept in adjustment. Now with my auto feeler in the F I have run several rolls of film right through it without it feeling them. I have resorted to putting a piece of tape on it to narrow the gap. I totally trust the red dot and arrow system of the FX. I don't trust the auto feeler because it has failed me several times.

This lack of auto is why people say the FX is based on the T. The FX is a much more solid camera than a T or a Cord and some of the F parts are interchangeable with the FX. I can put the F hinge latch on the FX and put an F door on it and even put on the plate back.

With the FX they have replaced the previous chrome rollers inside the camera with black rollers. This significantly reduces the roller reflection issue a lot of people run into with a Rollei.

The meter in the FX is a center weighted sensor that reads a spot about the size of an American dime. It is much better than the older over the top meters.

The HFT coating on the FX Planar (now called S Apogon) significantly reduces the flare from the older single coated Planar. It gives you very well saturated colors. My 2.8F has the single coated Xenotar and the HFT coated Planar has less tendency to flare though I would say the lenses have equal sharpness. I have never been able to prove one sharper than the other.

The FX seems a very solid and trustworthy camera to me, though at first I was expecting it to feel cheap because that is what a lot of people said. I think though that the people who say it is not well made are generally people who have never owned one.

The negatives to me are..
The brown leather I have has gotten some wear marks on it. I have traveled some with it, to Mexico and doing landscape work in the US. I have put quite a bit of film through mine in 5 or 6 years. I don't think that brown cowhide holds up as well as the leatherette on the F. Also the chrome edges on the door have worn a little and lost a little sheen where I habitually hold it. I think the later versions with the black leather and the black edges is probably better.

The other thing I don't like about the FX is that the meter gives color light spots for the meter reading along the top edge of the viewing screen. I find it distracting. Also where the battery sits in the knob can cause a slight click when you roll the focus over the 1.5 meter spot. Most people don't notice the little click but it bothered me. I don't use the meter any way so I don't have a battery in the camera so it solves both the lighted diodes and the click problem for me.

That is about all my 2 cents worth.

there is a photo of my well loved Rolleis