Metz and sync cords

[andronicus707]

I have owned an older Metz 60 CT-4 and have used a sync cord to connect it to my Crown Graphic and also my Fuji GW/GSW 690 III. I'm thinking of updating to a Metz 50, 70, or 76 MZ-5. My question is: do these newer Metz flashes allow using a sync cord?

 

[Mike Wilde]

If you mean the wierd multi contact plug that goes into the side of the handle of the head, yes. I beileve that there are only 2 contacts used for a dumb cord , but more if there is a sca adapter, and some sort of automation going on with the camera.

Look at the Paramount Cords web site. They have every permutation of Metz synch cord that is not OEM available to be made for you.

 

[benjiboy]

They do but I think with the cameras you have since they have no TTL flash capability I would stick to what I've got.

 

[wiltw]

The Metz 70 and 76 have LESS true POWER than your Metz 60 does, simply because the newer units have zoom heads and the rating is rather fictitious hype in being based upon the (135 format) lens FL coverage equivalence of 105mm. My Metz 45 has more power than the Metz 58, when the Metz 58 is set to 35mm coverage (same angle of coverage as the Metz 45). And the newer flashes are module dedicated, so have no connector socket for a PC connection at the camera...that is, my Metz 54 does not, so I have to assume the Metz 70/76 would not either.

 

[benjiboy]

As I said, the OP is better sticking to his Metz 60, I can't imagine anyone needing a more powerful gun, mine will nearly remove wallpaper!

 

[Q.G.]

Just to strike a contrary note: i'd get rid of a Metz 60 unit in a flash.

Having to carry not just a flash, with a cable running from it to the camera/lens, but also a heavy battery pack with a thick cable running from it to the flash is a pain in the posterior of considerable size.

For the life of me, i can't understand why people put up with it.
It's not a power thing, since the Metz 45 series are not even one stop less powerful.

It can't be battery capacity either, since it is so much easier to carry spare batteries for an AA-consuming unit than having to haul that archaic battery pack around.
And putting a set of fresh batteries in a 45 unit takes 3 seconds. If that long at all.

Nor can it be cycle time, since the 60 units aren't faster than other units.

Besides: doesn't it say "i have owned", perhaps as in "no longer do"?

 

[ozphoto]

It depends what the OP is using their 60-CT4 to light. I have found it invaluable to simulate "sunlight" on an awfully overcast day with a gel attached.
If it's just to light smaller areas it is quite possibly overkill. And the weight is a killer - you could use the battery as a door stop once you buy another or give up photography.

 

[Chan Tran]

recycle time is faster with the 60 than the 45. Yes both have the same rating of about 6 seconds from full power. Not very impressive. But with typical straight on shot the 60 generally recycle in less that 0.2 sec.

 

[Q.G.]

Same as the 45s.
But even if there is a difference, it is so small that it cannot be a deciding factor.

So i (still) do not understand why anyone would want to walk around with a Metz CT 60.

 

[wiltw]

recycle time is faster with the 60 than the 45. Yes both have the same rating of about 6 seconds from full power. Not very impressive. But with typical straight on shot the 60 generally recycle in less that 0.2 sec.

If you use a Quantum Turbo, you can shoot with the 45CL in under a minute full recycle.