paul_loveteck

<p>The CFV-39 is so precise that it is much less tolerant than film for focusing.<br>

The 60mm will give you a little extra margin because of increased DOF.<br>

Another thing to consider is weight and size for an all around lens. The 60 and 80 easily win against the 40 or 50 on this.<br>

My recommendation would be a 60 CF. . .</p>

<p>I suggest that in the cost of ownership of a 203FE you add the cost of maintaining the FE/CFE lenses and E magazines as if you do not use them you might as well buy a 500C/M or 503CW.<br>

Another factor in servicing is time required. If you need your camera for any pro use, be ready to buy 2 or 3 203fe's as you cannot wait months. This is also part of ownership, and now you have two cameras to maintain. . .<br>

And, don't forget the cost of a truckload of batteries.</p>

<p>Q.G.<br>

Being "rugged machines" or not, having contributed to the decline of Hasselblad or not are subjective matters in which we disagree. History will decide who was right.<br>

The cost of repairs, the extra cost for F lenses and E backs, the unavailability of repairs in the US, the cost of modifying a 203FE for digital back ($750.00 last time I checked) are facts you carefully avoid, making me wonder what's your interest in promoting these cameras to unaware potential buyers.<br>

The last shutter fix on a 203FE I was involved with was more than $2,000 and took 3 months. A shutter fix on a 503CW can be done in many places in the US for $150.00. And 203FE shutters often fail, as well as their (not quality) electronics.<br>

It is also a fact that if Hasselblad had among the best mechanical engineers, unfortunately, this was not the case for the electronics.<br>

And, if you "downgrade" a 203FE to use it as a 503CW by forgetting its battery and not modifying it to accept digital backs, what's the point of buying it instead of a 503CW? The 503CW will still be much more reliable than a 203FE, even "downgraded".<br>

Finally, I have no idea of what you mean by "You sound just like another Paul, who left PN in a bit of a huff a while ago". I am new in this forum and if somebody contradicted you before, it was not me!</p>

<p>There is nothing like a "good 203FE" today. (or any 200 series as a matter of fact).<br>

They are very fragile, fail often and are either impossible or very expensive to fix, needing to be sent back to Sweden.<br>

They cannot take digital backs without being modified and then are no longer what they are supposed to be.<br>

In addition, they eat their (expensive, not rechargeable) battery in no time which make them die in the field . . .<br>

They (with the 205's) contributed to the decline of Hasselblad.<br>

The very best Hasselblad is still the 503CW, this is why Hasselblad has discontinued all other models and not the 503CW. 203FE's have been discontinued a long time ago.</p>

<p>I join <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6063681">Leigh B.</a> to recommend a CF lens.<br>

If for portrait use you will not see much difference between the three of them, you will definitively see a difference on the price to pay for service or problem. Nobody outside Hasselblad wants to service the CB and CFE's today.<br>

All lenses need regular service, CF's are better than CB and as good as CFE and cost one third to fix/maintain. Easy choice . . .<br>

CB's use cheaper plastic parts inside, translating to more service.<br>

The only CB I would recommend is the 60mm.</p>

<p>Why don't you post here what you are looking for?<br>

I or somebody else might be able to help (no commission . . .)</p>

<p>The "highest megapixel" as you call them working with any 500 series today is the 60 Mega pixels PhaseOne P65+ (If you ask the price of this one, you probably cannot afford it).<br>

The next one is the Hasselblad CFV-50 with 50 Mega pixels. (This one only around $17,000).<br>

Don't forget that even the "smallest one" like the PhaseOne P20+ or the Hasselblad CFVII (both 16 Mega pixels) produce images far better than the top of the line Canon or Nikon because their pixels are much larger (9 microns) and each pixel use 16 bits, corresponding to 12 stops of dynamic. When you can find one, they sell between $6,000 and $8,000 depending of condition.<br>

An Hasselblad 500 series + a CFV-II (or P20+) + a Zeiss lens is still less expensive than a Nikon D3x or Canon MkII equipped with a prime lens and will outperform them by a large margin!</p>

<p>Ken,<br>

You get the actuation count as well as many other data in a special menu entry under settings. It's pretty much like what you get on any modern DSLR. Again, if a seller does not know how to do it I suggest that you buy from another one. . .<br>

One of the data also available is what Hasselblad calls "On Time". This tells you for how many days/hours the back has been powered on since it left the factory and is probably as important if not more than the number of actuations. Another thing any competent seller should be able to tell you.</p>

<p>Ken,<br>

The IR filter looks like a piece of glass on top of the sensor. You cannot lose it however you can scratch it! It is not user replaceable and expensive to replace by the manufacturer.<br>

You can see mine below (on a CFV II back):</p>

<div></div>

<p>Ken,<br>

As a former user of a CFV I and current owner of a CFV II, To my opinion, yes, there is a significant difference between them. First, the obvious, the screen on the CFV II is useful (it was useless on the CFV I). Then, but this is harder to quantify, the quality of pictures on the CFV II is always better, I found them sharper and better "looking" whatever this means. Is this worth the difference in price for me has no real meaning. Is a Ferrari worth the difference in price with a Chevrolet? Only you can decide! As far as I am concerned, yes, the CFV II was worth every extra penny I paid for it.<br>

Actuations do not count on a pure technical point of view. However, if a back has 200,000 actuations and the other 1,000 actuations, you must ask yourself questions on how many times the back was dropped, how many times a small scratch happened on the filter, How many times the battery was taken in/out, each time putting some wear on the contacts, how much dust got in the shutter control opening, how many times it was taken off/on the camera, each time wearing a little bit the mounting plate etc . . . The 1,000 has a very clear advantage in general.<br>

The actuation count is available on ALL CFV backs. If a seller tells you that he cannot find it, he has something to hide or (worse) he is completely incompetent, believe me!<br>

I never had to get my CFV's fixed. I had an accidental scratch on a (similar to CFV II) PhaseOne P20+ and the cost of changing the IR filter (in Denmark) was $1,200.00<br>

Finally, I can tell you that the CFV II is a fantastic back. Don't be fooled by the marketing hype for newer and more expensive backs: the CFV II produces amazing pictures. Far better than my Nikon D3x.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Q.G.<br>

For all intent and purposes, the P65+ has a crop factor of 1 (1.02 if I remember). The CFV-50 (and multiple others) are very close: 1.1. They all will have vignetting with a non-gliding mirror camera like the 500C/M<br>

Yes, you are correct, I knew the back plate could be changed. However, it's not a practical option as it will cost you the price of a body and takes 3 to 4 months (if the wind is in the right direction).<br>

I continue to think that a banged-up plate IS an issue as not only (as you rightly say) the body length might need to be changed (how many tech's know how to do it correctly today?) but you can have light leaks. I know, I had one . . . Most "pros" slam their back into place without using the release button and over time the small ridge in the plate protecting from leaks is gone.</p>

<p>Daryn,<br>

Although I agree most of the time with <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a>, I kindly offer a different opinion:<br>

- Yes, as far as digital backs compatibility, there is no difference between a 500C/M and a 503CW. In fact, even a 500C can take any digital back.<br>

- However, the 503 CW adds the TTL OTF flash metering which might be of interest for you if you plan to use a flash. (In that case, be sure to buy an ISO 3200 version of the 503CW)<br>

- When combined with a digital back, the winder is a very significant improvement as you will take many more pictures with your digital back and the winder makes this a breeze.<br>

- If it is true that vignetting won't be a problem with the "small" backs, many backs today have a crop factor of 1.1 or even 1 and vignetting with the 500C/M will be a factor.<br>

- If the 80 and 150 can be considered as "common", the 50 and 120 are much more expensive, specially if you want a good one. I do not believe you have a chance to find a decent 503CW with a 120mm (I would only consider at least a CF lens) for $1,800. $3,000 would be more what to expect if you want a good condition camera/lens/back.<br>

- Hasselblad is still selling brand new 503CW, brand new lenses (CFE and CFi's) and brand new A12's. Yes, the price will be close to $7,000 if this is what you want.<br>

- If you buy a used one and intend to go digital later, be extremely careful to check that the mounting plate of the 503CW is in perfect condition. Digital backs are much less tolerant than film and the slightest imperfection on the plate will translate into inferior images. By the way, this might also be a reason for you to "upgrade" from your 500C/M if its back plate is banged-up. Remember, those plates cannot be changed! (they have the serial # and Hasselblad would need to make a special one for you . . .)</p>

<p>David Odess is a very good choice.<br>

CaveOfTreasures is another great choice: only top quality equipment and warranty</p>

<p>...But, must be said, those distortions are completely corrected with a single click in any decent software. Don't forget that some of the most amazing images of the last 30 years have been produced by a faulty lens circling above the earth and almost blind without software corrections . . .<br>

A simple mouse click is not much to pay when you compare using a 503CW (or even a 500C/M) instead of a primitive SWC with its fixed lens and difficulty of composing / focusing.</p>

<p>I have to side with Wolf on this one. (and I have not been paid by any marketing department . . .).<br>

Not only parts are getting harder to find but, at least in the US, nobody wants to work on them anymore. When your camera fails, and it will believe me as the 2xxx are the most unreliable cameras Hasselblad made, you have to send it to Hasselblad. Often they do not fix them in the US and ship them to Sweden. After months, when it comes back, you had paid the price you probably paid to buy one.<br>

In addition, you need a truckload of expensive batteries when you go out to shoot as your baby is dead without battery.<br>

Hasselblad had many good reasons to kill this line and keep the 503CW.</p>

<p>After having used a SWC (and many 500's, my latest being a 503CW), my dream was to get rid of the SWC and have a lens as good as the Biogon on my 503CW.<br>

Well, somebody at Zeiss had the same idea and produced the 40mm CFE IF. One of their stated goals was to be at least as good as the 38mm, another goal to suppress the stupid second focusing ring of the 40mm FLE. They achieved both goals and produced this fantastic lens. I have been using one for 2 years and never, never regretted my SWC.<br>

I am using this lens with both film and digital (PhaseOne P20+) with fantastic results.<br>

It is more expensive, but worth every $$$</p>