The Metz 60CT-4 and Quantum Qflash Model T flash are old warhorses (like me I guess). I have had the Quantum Qflash model T for many years. But now the circuit board of my Quantum Turbo battery is kaput. For the same price as getting this repaired I have an option to buy 2 Metz 60CT-4 flash systems both with their own powerpacks in excellent working condition. Is this a no brainer?
I work mostly in the field and only use my lights on manual settings fired back into an umbrella to soften the light. I don't use TTL metering. I need powerful flashes as I sometimes to group photos but I don't take a lot of photos so quick recycling and long lasting battery endurance is not an issue, so long as the battery works. I like that in a pinch I can use AA batteries in the 60CT that is not an option with my Qflash, and they are easier to carry around than the bulkier Qflash Model T, and I do actually need another flash so 2 flashes+batteries seems like a better buy than one battery,
BUT.. and this is why I post this here,
the surface area of the Metz 60CT's built in reflector looks considerably smaller than the scoop that comes with the Quantum.
QUESTION: If bouncing either of these flashes into an umbrella, would the difference in the size of the head and reflector make any noticeable difference in softness and evenness of the light that ended up on the subject?
In theory it should but maybe in the real world there is no significant difference?
I have posted the same question on a different forum but nobody has answered it - maybe because they are all too young to have heard of these old flashes? Hope somebody hear can shed some light (pun intended) on this question.
I can't compare the two for you since I've only used one. I had the Metz unit for several years with the "dryfit" battery that was on a strap over the shoulder. For a portable flash it was very powerful and reliable and it worked well with umbrellas when I used it for that. The Metz has a fold away diffuser that would pull out and diffuse the main head. What was amazing about it was the quality of photos when the main head was bounced off a white ceiling and the front flash was set to the right fill ratio. The photos didn't look like flash photos, it was uncanny.
Fine to hear from your account the Metz's do a good job, even uncanny that is exactly what I would hope, as prefer the flash quietly and simply does its job rather than becoming the subject of my portrait photos, and also very happy to hear you got good results from bouncing them into an umbrella. My man concern is that as a result of a harsher and more direct form of light than I am used to the folks in front of the camera don't end up looking like boiled lobsters
I used it once at a private home, with a white or off white ceiling. Bounced the big head off the ceiling and used the fill in the handle I was amazed at how natural-looking the lighting was when I got the color prints back.
My guess is that since the Metz60CT is an old flash yet there are still plenty of them hanging around the globe/bulb or whatever you call it and other components must be quite durable and long lasting -- though probably cannot be removed from the head and replaced if they do conk out?
Not sure about the "dryfit" batteries? Did you ever have any problems with the ones you had and had to replace the cells that is a common issue with the Quantum Turbo batteries, which if not used on a regularly basis have to be carefully charged up on a regular basis to keep them alive. I figure that at least with the Metz there is always the possibilty of using AA batteries if this happens.
Hope I am not stretching your memory too far back in time :-)
I had two of them, the second after a burglary. Never had a battery problem. I know the Metz -4 something would use AA's in a pinch, not sure about the 60. My guess is that it was a sealed lead cell but I never opened it up to find out. Metz made some nice flashes.
My rarely used Metz 45CL-something has been good. Somehow it decided to misfire (may have been the camera's fault). Last time I used it was with a very tall ceiling in an artist's studio and I concur with the others - the results were natural and very good.
I bought a Norman 200 and it's sat unused for ages. Maybe I should use it sometime and compare.
maybe you should just sell me your norman 200 - they look like a nice rig that would work well in the bush where I am - trouble is they are too expensive - how many Metz60CT-4s can be bought for the same price, maybe 10?
So still toss my up between repairing the circuit board of my Quantum turbo battery and continuing with my old Model T flash that has a nice scoop, or the 2 60CT-4s that are powerful as lighthouses but have a smaller head and therefore maybe harsher and deliver less even light.
Windhorse, you shouldn't have any trouble with the spread of light if you are shooting it into an umbrella. Direct flash is a different story, but you aren't going there. The Q-Flashes are real nice, but once you start modifying the light with umbrellas or boxes they lose their advantage.
Reply With Quote
that is exactly what I would hope, as prefer the flash quietly and simply does its job rather than becoming the subject of my portrait photos, and also very happy to hear you got good results from bouncing them into an umbrella. My man concern is that as a result of a harsher and more direct form of light than I am used to the folks in front of the camera don't end up looking like boiled lobsters 
Bookmarks