Hasselblad decision: 203FE vs. 503cw

[richard blau]

I have decided to add a medium format kit to my equipment. I have narrowed it down to either

the Hasselblad 203fe or the 503cw. It seems to me that the 203 can, if I so choose, be used

exactly like the 503 with lens shutter, 1/500 sync etc. But it also might be more handy given the

electronics if I were in a slight hurry or with street shooting.

 

For purposes of this question, please assume no price difference (I can figure economics, I want

to know other +/�s). What are the issues, problems joys of each?

 

I am also thinking about a 40mm cfe, 80mm cfe and 120mm cfe and hope these will cover the

basics ( portrait, environmental, landscalpes and some indoor wide angle shots. I would

welcome suggesions on the basic kit.

 

Thank you for your advice.

 

Richard Blau

[q.g._de_bakker]

Well, you have said it all already: the 203 FE is a 503 CW whenever you want it to be, plus more. So if we ignore money, the answer is clear.

 

There are a few very minor restrictions: you can't use the 8 mm extension tube on a 203 FE (not as only tube, that is. And if you would mount it on another tube, you will lose the Databus). And the cloth focal plane shutter of the 203 obviously isn't quite as robust as the metal auxillary shutter of the 503, so you have to be a bit more careful when the film back is off camera.

And it would be nice if the changed the winder's design to the one they use for the CW. They did so for NASA, so there is no reason why they couldn't do so for all of us (but i suspect they want to clear stocks of winder-Fs first).

 

Your choice of lenses is good. But what lenses suit your style and/or need is a rather personal matter.

[russell_britt]

Get the 203 if that is what you want, but if the battery dies you have a beautiful paper weight. I like cameras without electronic shutters, just my two cents worth. If you use a shutter lens on the 203 you give up its only advantage faster lens speed.I carry two ELMs with one CM body just in case I have a battery to die in the ELMs but this seldom happens.I maily love the shutters lens system because it allows flash use at ANY shutter speed.But may be you never use flash.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Russell,

 

When the battery in a 203 dies, it still behaves as a fully functional 503 CW. No problems there.

 

But you're right, you can use a 503 CW as a beautiful paperweight. ;-)

 

And you know what is even easier to carry with you than a spare no-battery body? Indeed, a spare battery.

 

And another thing, batteries in EL cameras run down far sooner than those in 200 series cameras. So why do you like to use 2 fully battery dependent ELs, but wouldn't like to use a 203?

 

The faster FE lenses aren't the only advantage of a 200 series camera at all. How about the built-in metering?

 

And you have noticed how Richard is planning to use all CFE lenses? So no problem using high speed flash synch too.

[ShunCheung]

Well, if you run out of film, your 503CW (or 203FE or whatever Hassy body) can become a beautiful paperweight too, unless, of couse, if you are shooting with a digital back. :-)

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

I have 40, 80, 120 and 250mm Hasselblad lenses, but my 120 is a CFI: I read somewhere that the 120 CFE will be available soon.

 

I would only be tempted to acquire a focal plane Hassleblad if I had a shutter-free lens, like the 400mm Novoflex.

 

The polarizing filter for the 40 is expensive, but I would seldom take a landscape without a polarizer.

 

I wanted an ELD, lenses and a meter prism, and got a 501 CM free on the (expired) promotion.

[russell_britt]

What I see as the biggest advantage of the 203FE is faster lens speed, but with the shutter len you lose this? If I bought a shutter body Hassey I would want the faster lens fot it.I f I was planning on using shutter lens I would but the C series bodys. As for cameras with meters I always use hand held meters.I don`t trust reflected readings, but thats just me.If you can use a 203 at all shutters speed settings with a dead battery I stand corrected.

[Aoresteen]

The 200 series can have non Hasselbals lenses mounted on them, I have a 300mm f/4 Pentacon that I use with my 2000FC/M. The 503 can't due this.

[adrian_tyler]

I asked my dealer this quetion a long time ago because the 200 machnes look great in the leaflets. Anyway I trust my dealers and they have a lot of experience and he said refering to the focal plane bodies "it won't last you". I got into the 500's, new and second hand for that reason and apart from routine mainenance havn't had problems and they get a few knocks...

[q.g._de_bakker]

Adrian,

 

You should have asked Hasselblad users. They would have told you something quite different. Focal plane Hasselblads do last a long time too. Even the ill-reputed (undesevedly so) 2000 series. No problem.

[dave_wilson1]

Unless you were going for the fast F lenses to go with the 203, I say the 503 wins. Mine is very reliable and, when I use the auto flash feature, it's great. I am not easy on cameras and mine has been very reliable along with my 501. I must admit, I have little or no interest in focal plane cameras, I want easy flash sync at all speeds without thinking. Good Luck.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Just a quick note.

 

It appears (to me at least) that some of us here still think that the leaf shutter vs focal plane shutter Hasselblad is an either-or issue.

It isn't.

 

If you like the way a 503 works, leaf shutter and all, you will also like the way the 203 works. It is an 503 CW whenever you want it to be. But "503 CW" mode is only one option with this camera. There are extras!

[kornelius_j._fleischer]

Three more things in favour of the focal plane Hasselblad, which no one mentioned yet, from one who has used a focal plane shutter Hasselblad (mostly with central shutters) for more than half a decade:

 

Focal plane shutter Hasselblad cameras have a larger mirror. This gives you a non-vignetted viewfinder image even with very long lenses like the Tele-Apotessar 8/500 and bellows work with special optics like Zeiss Luminar lenses. I use these frequently. Therefore it matters to me. And therefore I know that the many posters on this forum who claim the 503 had the large mirror, are wrong. The 503 has a smaller mirror which does vignette the 8/500 and lenses on Hasselblad bellows, even if the 503 mirror is better than the 501 mirror.

 

Also, the mirror pre release button on the focal plane shutter camera is much more ergonomic and convenient. Since I use mirror lock-up on 98 % of my photos, this detail also matters to me.

 

And the mirror itself is an instant return type. It gives me back my viewfinder image immediately, if I want it to. I just have to set my central shutter lens to "F".

In case the battery is empty, I set the camera to "C". It then uses the shutter in the lens and works without battery, performing everything a 503 could do. At least.

 

In short: I'd go for the 203.

[victor_randin]

Richard, certainly the 203 is the more universal camera than the 503 along of it has the main advantage: the possibility of using either CF/CFE or more fast tele F-lenses and both focal/central shutters when you want.

 

I had owned a 2000FC but no one of F-type lens. It seemed to me that F-lenses are some kind of �semi-lenses� as with no shutters, I didn�t even think to purchase at least one of them. Maybe I was wrong.

 

I had also the 1600F (along the 500�) with a dozen of various lenses especially matched to it. It was a good old camera particulaly when shooting with the Olimpic Sonnar 2.8/200mm but had a small PQ-factor of the mirror. And it was a pain for me to keep two different systems of camera/lenses both named Hasselblad.

 

Now I think that the choice the 203 vs 503 is a matter of money, IMHO.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Kornelius,

 

I gather the total number of 500 mm Tele-Apotessars sold is rather low, so how many of us will ever notice vignetting using this lens, on any camera? ;-)

 

You should be able to tell us, is the 500 mm discontinued? It no longer features on the Zeiss website, nor has it been included in the CF to CFi transition.

If so, there is one less reason to worry about the 503's mirror vignetting, despite its GMS.

[jeremy_keller]

Sir Blau!

 

This is beside the point if you have committed to 'Blad. No arguments with the quality, the nonpareil Zeiss lenses, etc., BUT the dreaded

 

MIRROR SLAP

 

is potentially as baneful as that incendiary tautology "Greek Macedonia."

 

Without knowing your film/digital choices, it is hard to comment on the degree of asperity you will have to endure from the aforesaid bouncing mirror. Suffice it to say that the Movement's beloved, mirror-free (and dirt-cheap) Autocord has survived all manner of Balkan backpack abuse, from Agios Poustis to Siktra Orospoo to the rat-trap Sandzak of Novi Pazar, without more than an occasional CLA.

 

On the higher end of the $cale , there are even finer things--the Weitwinkel Rollei or the W67 Plaubel, for example. But I wouldn't use such to drive tent-pegs.

 

Good hunting,

 

Biker

[kornelius_j._fleischer]

Every SLR manufacturer wants to keep the mirror small to save space, moving mass, and cost. Hasselblad, when designing the 500 C, settled for a mirror size that would allow the image of a 150 mm lens to be seen in the viewfinder without vignetting. Anything longer than this would be vignetted with a Hasselblad 500 C and newer versions like the 501.

 

Yes, Hasselblad has discontinued the Tele-Apotessar 8/500. They believe the combination of Zeiss Tele-Superachromat plus Hasselblad Apo converter 1.4 XE serves the same purpose.

 

There are several thousand Tele-Apotessar 8/500 out there, and there was a Tele-Tessar 8/500 on the market before that, again several thousand units have the potential to come along your way.

 

Anyway: in most Hasselblad bodies, a lens like the Sonnar 5,6/250 will vignette, even a 4/180. And with a Hasselblad 203 you have completely and forever solved this problem.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Kornelius,

 

Thanks for confirming that the 500 mm has been abandoned. I would agree that using one of they Superachromats and the appropriate converter sounds good. But a bit expensive perhaps (about 1.5x more expensive)?

 

Is it not true that the ratio of Zeiss/Hasselblad 500 mm lenses sold to the number of Zeiss/Hasselblad 80 mm lenses sold is roughly about 1 : 50? Or that the total number of Zeiss/Hasselblad 500 mm lenses sold is about 1% of all Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses sold?

So they do indeed have a potential to come our way (and i have indeed seen a few) but still... ;-)

 

But i do agree that using a focal plane shutter Hasselblad eliminates lots of vignetting, more so than GMS-equiped Hasselblads. But i feel GMS still is a leap forward, so i would not hesitate recommending any of these cameras.

Yet i haven't, since (as was mentioned) the 203 offers all the 503 does, and (more importantly) more.

[richard blau]

Dear Responders,

 

Thank you all for taking the time to help a newcomer. I am, thanks in part to you, close to making

a decision. I am leaning toward the 203fe. I would like to run a couple of things by you.

 

1) I am assuming that the in camera metering and auto settings on the 203 (a) work well and (b)

are useful in situations where a little speed is handy. I am further assuming that the "D" mode is a

useful option. The one thing I haven't heard yet is someone telling me they enjoy the 203, or

that they like it better that the 503cw (or vice versa). Any last testamonials? There are some

great reviews on the photo net site, but none of the Hasselblads.

 

2) I've been running some numbers and find that it even makes economic sense to add a

503cw body to my order (great rebates). Would you recommend a backup body?

[gallen]

Hello everyone,

 

Thanks for the lively discussion.

 

Yet another question about the 203FE: Can it shoot without

batteries using the shutter of a CF lens? I know the 201f can do

this, but I'm curious about the 203FE.

 

Thanks!

[q.g._de_bakker]

Greg,

 

Yes it can.

[cameron_ertman]

There are a few things I would like to clear up. The GMS system on the latest 501(the 501cm not the 501c) is the exact same mirror system as on the 503. There is no "superior" mirror for the 503 in the newest versions. Also, I have the 500mm APO as well as the 180mm etc. and notice no vignetting on the 180mm at all(even when I use over 100mm extention tubes). When I use the 500mm there is some MARGINAL vignetting at the top of the screen but nothing to worry about. I even use my 500mm with the 2x converter, and sometimes even stack my 2x with my 1.4x to give me a focal length of 1400mm and still, while there is some vignetting, there is no real problem working around it. Lastly, the 350mm with 1.4x is NOT the same, or even a good substitute for the 500mm. Yes, it does give you a 490mm lens, but even using a 2x converter, you are pretty well limited to a 700mm lens (even though I double stack converters at times, it is for speciallized purposes, and not recommended for general photography). One reason I chose to invest in Hasselblad was for the nice, long, 500mm lens. Another reason I pay the big bucks for Hasselblad, is so that economics is not the overall reason for them to be making something. It is beginning to be a trend with Hasselblad that I do not like at all, and I think it will back-fire on them eventually. To see how far we have not come, just take a look at a Hasselblad cataloge from the early 80's...there were a ton of interesting items for microscopes etc. Economic sense is not always the best sense. There, I am off of my soap box for now.

[cameron_ertman]

Richard, having said all of that, I think I forgot to answer your question. Yes, the 203 is an excellent tool that would speed up the metering process; however, I read an article not too long ago where the author went back to his hand held meter because he began taking the in-camera exposure recommendation too much for granted. He found that he was far more accurate with his hand held unit because he was forced to slow down a bit and really think about what he was metering. There could be some truth to that. If you can swing it, you can't go wrong getting both cameras as you stated earlier. On another note, last night it went down to about minas twenty where I live. I was glad I had my mechanical (non battery dependent) 501cm with me.