503CW or 203FE

Dear All,

 

Looking for your expert advice. Question is not which is a better or capable camera, which I feel is 203FE, not to mention the ability to use the legendary 110 f2 lens with it ( Not that I could afford it !! ).My question is about reliability & serviceability.. Is 503CW, a more reliable, easy to service camera than 203FE? What are pitfalls, other than paying top $$, of getting a 203FE? Thanks

A 203's advantage lies indeed in the possibility to use F lenses. But i would make sure that if you get one, it will work with the digital back(s) you might want to put behind it.

I wouldn't regard the built-in metering and automatic exposure as a big advantage myself.

 

Apart from not being able to use those F lenses, a 503 CW is as good a choice.

 

Re service: it is far easier to find some capable repair person who can work on the fully mechanical 500 series. Electronics make things harder to repair. And the focal plane shutter too makes the 200 and 2000 series harder to find service for (impossible in the case of 2000 series cameras).

 

Re service: it is far easier to find some capable repair person who can work on the fully mechanical 500 series. Electronics make things harder to repair. And the focal plane shutter too makes the 200 and 2000 series harder to find service for (impossible in the case of 2000 series cameras).

 

Thank you. What's the equivalent ( if any ) 110 f/2 lens that can be used with 500 series, for that matter, any medium format lens? I tink it's not worth taking the risk to get a non serviceable 200 series just to use 110 lens !

The 500cw can be serviced at most places that work on Hasselblads, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone to service the 203fe, let alone find parts for it. That should answer your serviceability question. As for reliability, they are both probably equally good.

 

I have a 203fe and a 503cx, and I use the 203fe 95% of the time, even with C lenses. It does everything the cx (or cw) does, plus more. The only down side are batteries (which for me is not an issue), but even without batteries, it still does everything the cx does.

 

There are no equivalent f/2 lenses for the 500 series, as there are no mechanical leaf shutters with openings large enough for those lenses. Schneider Kreuznach makes a 80mm f/2 for Rollei, and Hasselblad makes a HC 100mm f/2.2 for the H system, both use electronic linear motors with composite leafs.

If using fast lenses on roll film is the attractive idea there are alternatives to be had:

 

Norita 66 with 80mm f2 lens.

Mamiya 645 with 80mm f1.9 lens.

 

Not as nice as Hasselblad equipment but being mechanically based these two are in theory still repairable.

And total junk failure, if it happens, will cost a small fortune not a big one.

Go with the 503CW. I have learned not to invest much in older cameras that rely on printed circuit boards. I coveted a 203FE back in the day but I would not buy one now since maintenance and repair would be potentially a problem, if not an outright impossibility due to lack of electronic parts.

Depends on the price, though. It's not that all 200-series cameras are destined to stop working in april next year. You may still get many, many years of unproblematic use out of them. It's just that if they fail, service may be hard to get.

 

If you want to use the 110 mm Planar (a unique lens in the Hasselblad line), there's no other way. Maybe a 201 F will be cheaper. But they are also harder to find.

 

There is no comparable lens in the C/CFx line. No lens that renders like the 110 mm, wide open (!).

 

If i would be given the OP's choice, i think i would try to find a good 203 and take my chances.

But i would try to find one that has been converted to use the contacts on the rear to communicate with digital backs (in ELD fashion), instead of ISO info from a film back.

Thanks everyone. Lots of helpful info. On the subejct of using fast glasses with medium format cameras, how about another legendary combo like Pentax 67ii w/ SMC 105 2.4? Yes it's not F2, but still..Anyone tried this Vs 203FE W/ 110 F2?

Late chiming in, but as the owner of a 2000FCM waiting for its eventual demise, I would go for a 500 series.

...Pentax 67ii w/ SMC 105 2.4? Yes it's not F2, but still..Anyone tried this Vs 203FE W/ 110 F2?

I've used both, but there was a ~2 decade gap between them, so I can't really compare them. They are both double gauss designs. The 110mm went through ~5 variations, with 2 optical designs. The 105 also went through many variations, and probably more optical updates - the early ones used thorium doped glass (radioactive), and those were probably the sharpest (that's the one I had), but environmentally expensive to manufacture. As I recall, both were similarly good, with similar, but different "character"...

 

As for f/2 ; f/2.2; f/2.5 - I don't believe you will see much difference unless you compare them side by side. The max openings are great for focusing and art, but production (ie: paying) was usually 5.6~8.

 

 

PS: electronically, the 2000 series is more reliable, as they use discrete components (which are all replaceable), and no chips. The terminating factor is the shutter electromagnets, which have no replacement stock.

Thank you. What's the equivalent ( if any ) 110 f/2 lens that can be used with 500 series, for that matter, any medium format lens? I tink it's not worth taking the risk to get a non serviceable 200 series just to use 110 lens !

 

I'd say that would be foolish. The 100mm F3.5 is a great lens, probably equivalent to the 110/F2 unless you must have the extra stops. And the V-System camera will be useful way beyond the life of the 200 series camera. BTW, the Hasselblad meter prism finders provide great light meters for the V-System.

Hasselblad SLRs never tempted me, so I voted Yashica Mat, although I 'd never swap my C330 against one.

 

Buying a camera for a lens you can only dream of isn't very smart, unless you have sufficient wealth scheduled. Talking about wealth: Shooting a freaking fast lens wide open will cost you a whole lot of film and processing. I'm not good at math but would guess, if your models' ever changing facial expressions grant 3 keepers per roll and your focusing skills 2, you 'll need at least 2 rolls per keeper? Thats unfortunately a great way to burn friends & family out.. The invention of swiftlyauto focusing digital did neither increase makeshift models' patience nor make heritage gear shooters' challenge any easier.

Shooting MF on a budget, I'd rather stick to the safe side of DOF and clean instead of blurred backgrounds.

While modern Hasselblads might offer good and comparably bright focusing screens, fast glass wide open always felt so demanding, that I had to rely on luck, to me. YMMV, but why don't you grow out of a Helios / Jupiter 9 / 7 Artisans cobbled onto your MILC of choice before you decide to spend big $$s? Ripping through 10 rolls of film and realizing "I apparently only produced high end Lomography" isn't the most rewarding experience.

Hasselblad SLRs never tempted me, so I voted Yashica Mat, although I 'd never swap my C330 against one.

 

Buying a camera for a lens you can only dream of isn't very smart, unless you have sufficient wealth scheduled. Talking about wealth: Shooting a freaking fast lens wide open will cost you a whole lot of film and processing. I'm not good at math but would guess, if your models' ever changing facial expressions grant 3 keepers per roll and your focusing skills 2, you 'll need at least 2 rolls per keeper? Thats unfortunately a great way to burn friends & family out.. The invention of swiftlyauto focusing digital did neither increase makeshift models' patience nor make heritage gear shooters' challenge any easier.

Shooting MF on a budget, I'd rather stick to the safe side of DOF and clean instead of blurred backgrounds.

While modern Hasselblads might offer good and comparably bright focusing screens, fast glass wide open always felt so demanding, that I had to rely on luck, to me. YMMV, but why don't you grow out of a Helios / Jupiter 9 / 7 Artisans cobbled onto your MILC of choice before you decide to spend big $$s? Ripping through 10 rolls of film and realizing "I apparently only produced high end Lomography" isn't the most rewarding experience.

My mileage, for one, does indeed vary. ;-)

 

Yes, having shallow depth of field and manual focusing requires a bit more dexterity than autofocus and f/8-and-be-there. But i have never found it as bas as you have experienced it to be.

 

So if using the 110 mm is something you dream of, just spend the money and give it a try. If you find it not the thing for you, you can get every cent or penny you spent back. Just sell it again.

The 200 series cameras would have been the best in the world IF they had been perfected. Everything about them was superb except reliability and the ability to get them fixed.

The 200 series cameras would have been the best in the world IF they had been perfected. Everything about them was superb except reliability and the ability to get them fixed.

I have not found the 200 (or 2000) series to be unreliable. They were no different than the 500's.

 

Repairs were fine when they were in production, and during their service design life. It was their cost that limited total numbers, which also leads to the limited parts in latter years.

 

Every tired to fine the plastic bearing/sleeve for the shaft of a CF lens?

True, it's becoming more difficult to service CF lenses. I've had two that need parts that are unobtainable.