What not good about the Sunpak PZ40X for Canon DSLR?

watermelonboy · 30th April 2006

Saw $245 offer of this Sunpak Power Zoom 40X (PZ40X). It has these features:

-For Digital & Film SLRs
-Compatible with Canon E-TTL II and Nikon i-TTL
-Auto Power Zoom
-LCD Display
-AF Infrared Assist Light
-Auto Power Save
-Adjustable Bounce Head

The PZ seems like a well packaged flash. Very tempted to get it for my 350D.

Why should I pay double or more for a Canon flash? Am I missing out something important?

keatsoh · 30th April 2006

I am using it. Very compact... not bad.

raptor84 · 30th April 2006

The stated recycle time for a full power shot in fresh NiMh battries is a whopping 8 secs. Also the flash zoom head covers 24-80 while I belelive canons 430ex covers 24-105. Since it runs on 2 AA batts i dont expect it to last very long either. But for amost 1/2 the price of a 430ex it does offer quite alot. I did find one disturbing review though but the writer claims that its not form "from carefully controlled tests". It has something to do with continious flashing..

http://www.oncloserinspection.com/Pr...40X/sunpak.htm

solarii · 30th April 2006

For $240 or slightly more (really depends on the seller and yr luck), you can get a used 420EX which is way better than the Sunpak. In fact there's nothing really bad about the 420, just that it doesn't have manual controls but unless you're into studio lighting it won't be an issue.

I agree that the current price of the 430EX is a little steep at ard $400 odd... but there are cheaper alternatives...

What's wrong with 3rd party alternatives? Nothing really... just that they reverse engineer original products to make them compatible. So essentially they get a canon flash + camera, figure out how the data signals work, and use it to built their flashes. They don't own the full specifications for the data signals... they figure them out.

You can think of it this way. One surgeon went to med school and got his med degree. Another just cut up dead bodies, figured out how the insides should look, and basically tries to make everything look like it should. A little crude and politically incorrect, but that's the way it is.

watermelonboy · 30th April 2006

Thanks raptor84 for the insight and link to review

Thanks solarii for the interesting analogy - actually my doctor friends went through medical school cutting deadbodies first to figure out how things work.

The PZ40X clearly cannot be used for very serious/pro use or to make a living but amateurish shooting of kids at home should be ok for the price.

I will just use my old trusty Sunpak 383 for the time being.

30th April 2006	#1
watermelonboy Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 119	What not good about the Sunpak PZ40X for Canon DSLR? Saw $245 offer of this Sunpak Power Zoom 40X (PZ40X). It has these features: -For Digital & Film SLRs -Compatible with Canon E-TTL II and Nikon i-TTL -Auto Power Zoom -LCD Display -AF Infrared Assist Light -Auto Power Save -Adjustable Bounce Head The PZ seems like a well packaged flash. Very tempted to get it for my 350D. Why should I pay double or more for a Canon flash? Am I missing out something important?

30th April 2006	#2
keatsoh Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Buangkok Crescent Posts: 251	Re: What not good about the Sunpak PZ40X for Canon DSLR? I am using it. Very compact... not bad.

30th April 2006	#3
raptor84 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 4,280	Re: What not good about the Sunpak PZ40X for Canon DSLR? The stated recycle time for a full power shot in fresh NiMh battries is a whopping 8 secs. Also the flash zoom head covers 24-80 while I belelive canons 430ex covers 24-105. Since it runs on 2 AA batts i dont expect it to last very long either. But for amost 1/2 the price of a 430ex it does offer quite alot. I did find one disturbing review though but the writer claims that its not form "from carefully controlled tests". It has something to do with continious flashing.. http://www.oncloserinspection.com/Pr...40X/sunpak.htm __________________ Pet Portrait Portfolio Stock Photos for sale

30th April 2006	#4
solarii Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bt. Timah Posts: 1,375	Re: What not good about the Sunpak PZ40X for Canon DSLR? For $240 or slightly more (really depends on the seller and yr luck), you can get a used 420EX which is way better than the Sunpak. In fact there's nothing really bad about the 420, just that it doesn't have manual controls but unless you're into studio lighting it won't be an issue. I agree that the current price of the 430EX is a little steep at ard $400 odd... but there are cheaper alternatives... What's wrong with 3rd party alternatives? Nothing really... just that they reverse engineer original products to make them compatible. So essentially they get a canon flash + camera, figure out how the data signals work, and use it to built their flashes. They don't own the full specifications for the data signals... they figure them out. You can think of it this way. One surgeon went to med school and got his med degree. Another just cut up dead bodies, figured out how the insides should look, and basically tries to make everything look like it should. A little crude and politically incorrect, but that's the way it is. Last edited by solarii; 30th April 2006 at 06:35 PM.

30th April 2006	#5
watermelonboy Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 119	Re: What not good about the Sunpak PZ40X for Canon DSLR? Thanks raptor84 for the insight and link to review Thanks solarii for the interesting analogy - actually my doctor friends went through medical school cutting deadbodies first to figure out how things work. The PZ40X clearly cannot be used for very serious/pro use or to make a living but amateurish shooting of kids at home should be ok for the price. I will just use my old trusty Sunpak 383 for the time being.