2000FCW

<p>Could some one please advice me what would be the different between the 2000FCW and the 500 C/M or the 5003 CW, is the 2000 FCW is less in quality and performance than the other two camera, or does this 2000 FCW have a problem mechanically specially with the shutter.<br>

Could also the metered 45 view finder which is for the 500 series be used on the 2000 FCW ?</p>

<p>Thank you and wishing you all of the best.</p>

<p>The primary difference is that the 2000- and 200-series cameras have a focal plane shutter, and in addition to the C/CF/CFi/CFE lenses, they can take the F/FE lenses which do not have shutters, such as the legendary 110mm f/2. The 2000-series do not have built-in meters, just like the 500-series, whereas the 200-series do. The 2000-series have a more fragile titanium shutter, but the 2000FC/M and 2000/2003FCW cameras have a safety feature which moves the curtain into the body when you take the film back off. I had a 500C but now own a 2000FC/M, and have had no problems with it. I believe that apart from lenses and possibly the motor drive, all accessories work on either 500- or 2000-series. The 200-series has a few more quirks, like special backs, cut-outs for viewfinders, etc.</p>

<p>One other difference that perhaps should be mentioned is that it is as good as impossible to find someone to repair a 2000 (not 200) series camera. Too complicated. It was so already when they were still in production, even worse now.<br>

On the other hand: as Carsten already said, 2000-series cameras are every bit as well made as 500-series cameras, and you probably will never need to have one repaired.<br>

The only weak point of the 2000 series cameras (also mentioned by Carsten already, of course) are the titanium foil shutters. (Not an issue with 200 series cameras: they have shutter curtains made of rubberized cloth.)<br>

If you make sure the foil curtains stay fine, the focal plane Hasselblads are basically 500-series cameras that can do even more.</p>

 

<p>I don't know as much about the mechanics of these cameras as Q.G. does, but there is one small light in the tunnel if a 2000-series camera has a broken shutter curtain: there is a company which makes replacement rubberized curtains, and which can install them. I believe that they are in England:</p>

<p>http://www.broadpres.com/hb.pdf</p>

<p>This is slightly off-topic but the cloth curtains of the 200-series Hasselblads are not trouble free either. The otherwise nearly mint 205 TCC that I recently bought has worn shutter bands (they appear to have been cought in the gears at some point) which means that replacement is necessary and just recently the shutter of another 205 TCC I know transformed into a total mess after beeing released in cold weather. Cloth shutter curtains are available as spare parts, but at a price...<br>

Ulrik</p>

<p>I also hear a lot about the cloth curtains of the 200-series and many cases been reposrted defects, the question now , does this makes the 500 series better cameras pefromance wise and less troubles with defects shutter wise than the 200 series?</p>

<p>Thank you my friends</p>

<p>In my opinion the two do not compete much with each other. If you don't need or want the special lenses available for the 2000/200 cameras, get a 500. If you want the special lenses, get a 2000/200. I own the FE 50/2.8, 110/2 and 250/4, and all these are more modern and faster than what is available for the 500 series.</p>

<p>You can use a metered finder with older cameras. If you have a PME-3 or newer, the finder is calibrated for use with an Acute-Matte screen, which is about a stop more transparent than older screens. You need to adjust the exposure accordingly, most simply by adjusting the ISO setting.</p>

<p>my friend <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=419409">Edward Ingold</a>, happy new year to you and to all of the friends on photo.net.</p>

<p>I do have the 45 metered finder, I wrote a thread here earlier about how to use it, and how to figure out the EV on the shutter or the lens, many of the friends tried their best to explain it to me here but still I am not fully understanding it, this is again my poor English.<br>

I do have the 503 CW and the 500 C/M with 4 lenses, I just got an offer for the 2000 fcw compelete for a good price and it is in perfecr condition, I do not know much about it there for I do not want to rush and buy it if it is not good as the other two I have.</p>

<p>Thank you my friend and wishing you all of the best. </p>

<p>EV numbers are engraved on the lens - numbers on the shutter speed ring and the pointer on the aperture ring. To set a particular EV value, align the pointer with the number. The aperture can be set to half-EV values.</p>

<p>Each EV number represents a set of equivalent shutter speed and aperture settings. For example, if you increase the shutter speed one click and decrease the f/stop on click, the EV number (and exposure) stays the same. Hasselblad lenses allow you to couple the shutter and aperture rings so that they move in concert.</p>

<p>Rashed,</p>

<p>I like to second Carsten's advice: if you do not need the extra bit the 2000 FCW camera offers (i.e. the use of faster, shutterless lenses), there is no reason to get one.<br>

The 500-series cameras you already have are excellent machines. And it being offered at a good price alone would perhaps not be the best reason to add an 2000 FCW.</p>

<p>On the other hand: being able to use the 110 mm lens in particular* would be a good reason to add a 2000 FCW. But only if you get that lens too. ;-)</p>

<p>*The 110 mm Planar is not the sharpest of the bunch.<br>

Not that it isn't capable of delivering razor sharp images: it can, but you have to stop it down quite a bit.<br>

And that (stop it down) is something you don't want to do, since then you lose what makes this lens special. When used wide open, its shallow depth of field and the soft transitions from sharp to unsharp create images with 'a look' that no other Zeiss/Hasselblad lens can produce. Something you perhaps should try, see if/how you like it.</p>

<p>The 110/2 also has an amazingly short minimum focusing distance: 0,60m from front element. This combined with the focal length allows getting very close and really filling the frame. While the primary attraction of this lens is the amazingly smooth boke (in most situations, although it is of course not perfect), I find the sharpness better than Q.G. hints at. For this kind of portrait lens, in fact, I find it surprisingly good. It is of course far from the Super Achromats...</p>

<p>There are other great FE lenses. The 50/2.8 is also a very nice lens, as are some of the teles.</p>

<p>By the way, if you just use the 2000FCW, there is no need to buy expensive FE lenses, since these have additional contacts for use with the advanced 200-series cameras. The F lenses are in most cases identical, but without the contacs, and can be had for amazingly low prices (I will be putting an excellent F 50/2.8 on the market sometime soon, since I upgraded to an FE version.)</p>

<p>Thank you again my friend <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=419409">Edward Ingold</a>, I will practice on this meter for a while before shooting another film , thank you you been kind.</p>

<p>Thank you again my friend <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=419409">Edward Ingold</a>, I will practice on this meter for a while before shooting another film , thank you you been kind.</p>

<p>Thank you my friend <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a>, I will not puy it, I will buy some more items for what I have to compelete my system , thank you my friend , you been very kind and enjoy the happy new year my friend.</p>

<p>Thank you all, all been too kind with the informations give to me, I do approcaite it a lot and wishing you and yours all of the best for the new year my friends.</p>

<p>My friend, please give a look if your time permit to this image which is the first with the 500 C/M , I did not use the meter here and just judged the exposure , not a very good one but that was for testing the camera .</p>

<p>Thank you my friend</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10418481&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10418481&size=lg</a></p>

<p>Very nice shot, nice composition. I love the square composition of 6x6.</p>

<p>Thank you my friend Carsten, I am just learning , I hope I can do better in the future, thank you and wishing you al very happy and peaceful new year my friend.</p>

<p>Happy New Year to you too, Rashed, and good light!</p>

<p>I have a couple of 2000FC/M and a battered 500C. Over the last five years I have used the 2000FC/Ms less and less and tend to use my 500c more and more.</p>

<p>When I need the 110 f/2 or the 50mm f/2.8 it's nice to to have them available (Also my 300mm f/4) but for most shots it's the 500C with an 80mm or 150mm.</p>

<p>I have a couple of 2000FC/M and a battered 500C. Over the last five years I have used the 2000FC/Ms less and less and tend to use my 500c more and more.</p>

<p>When I need the 110 f/2 or the 50mm f/2.8 it's nice to to have them available (Also my 300mm f/4) but for most shots it's the 500C with an 80mm or 150mm.</p>

<p>There are two additional things one would use a 2000FCW for. One would be for multiple exposures. It is easier to take multiple/double exposure photographs using the 2000FCW where the camera needs to remain still. The second would be relatively repeatable exposures up to a minute (with the shutter speed multiplier). These are very specialized uses that very few photographers would require.</p>