Alternative for Nikon Speedlight - Sunpak PZ40X II


Status
Not open for further replies.

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Nope... mostly all using SB-800/600 or Mecablitzs here.
 

Caomhin

New Member
Hi.
I was using this before I had to return it for an SB600, so I had tested it for about 10 days. No CLS to play around with, but was attracted by the high GN and small size.
I returned it (2 pcs in within 10 days) because it was constantly underexposing, or should I say under-flashing. Not a problem with the GN or body settings as all permutations etc were trialled. I think it just does not "talk" properly with the body, to work out the proper amount of light as it should.

This should be an obvious observation, IMHO, general quality for build etc is lower that original Nikon SBs, batter hatch does not close flush when all the batts are in place with a gap of approx 2mm!

Gone back to Nikon SBs and not regretted it.




philipcs said:
http://www.adorama.com/SUPZ40X2NKS.html

Anyone using this? now dedicated for Nikon new DSLR like D50, D70s....
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
36
Caomhin said:
Hi.
I was using this before I had to return it for an SB600, so I had tested it for about 10 days. No CLS to play around with, but was attracted by the high GN and small size.
I returned it (2 pcs in within 10 days) because it was constantly underexposing, or should I say under-flashing. Not a problem with the GN or body settings as all permutations etc were trialled. I think it just does not "talk" properly with the body, to work out the proper amount of light as it should.

This should be an obvious observation, IMHO, general quality for build etc is lower that original Nikon SBs, batter hatch does not close flush when all the batts are in place with a gap of approx 2mm!

Gone back to Nikon SBs and not regretted it.
Hello! You don't just look at the number lah! 92 feet = 28m which is worse than a SB-600 which is rated 30/98 (m/ft) at the same ISO100 and 35mm coverage.
 

Caomhin

New Member
lsisaxon said:
Hello! You don't just look at the number lah! 92 feet = 28m which is worse than a SB-600 which is rated 30/98 (m/ft) at the same ISO100 and 35mm coverage.
Yah! I realised that later! :embrass:
Another reason why Nikon SBs are better.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
36
Caomhin said:
Yah! I realised that later! :embrass:
Another reason why Nikon SBs are better.
Metz used to be good but now their GN are also quite misleading. They rate it at max zoom instead of the traditionally used 35mm angle. Some other manufacturer also rate at ISO200 so have to look at the units carefully before comparing the numbers.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.