E-10 and Metz

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

Rudy de Geus said:

Yes, you need the sca3000c cable, it is the only cable that
supports the 3202 on the older sca300 flashes (like the 45cl4)
I had the combination for a few weeks, and to be honest, i had some
underexposure sometimes, especialy when bouncing the flash.
Als the metz sca adapter manual states that it supports ttl on the
e10/20 with this combination, there are some "drawbacks" it
supports ttl conditionally, the preflash (measuring flash), will
sometimes give a bad readout, and you will have to adjust
manually.page 10 of the manual.
But, as you didn't buy anything yet, you have alternatives.
If you like the metz quality (like i do) and want power, you can go
for the 70 series, or the 54mz3, both support the ttl optimal.
So what i did? Sold the 45cl4 with the special cable, and bought me
the 54mz3, and it works much better, exposure is constanly good now.
And it it cheaper also, more powerfull and compact, uses normal aa
batteries, 4 of them, not 6 like 45.
And the 54 flash, like the 70, is a modern flash, with digital lcd
readout, it suits the e10 much better.
Greetings
Rudy

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

grc said:

Posted this elsewhere with ref. to the Metz45 CL4.

You may find the following of interest

On auto set at the appropriate aperture, and the gun set at iso 80
it under exposes, but set at iso 64 all is fine. So did some tests
and this is what resulted using a flash meter. Each unit on the
flash meter represents 1/3 stop. (Shepherd FM1000 meter)

iso 50 meter = 14
iso 64 14
iso 80 11
iso 100 11
iso 125 11
iso 160 9
iso 200 9
iso 250 9
iso 320 6
iso 400 6
iso 500 6

Basically setting the iso on the flashgun makes no effective
difference for several iso ranges, ie, the iso dial only changes
the output in 1 stop settings!! So in auto I think the gun is about
2/3 - 1 stop under exposing. To make the minor 1/3 stop changes
then this can only be done with the camera aperture. It would be
interesting to see if the same were true for the Metz 54

GRC

Rudy de Geus said:

Yes, you need the sca3000c cable, it is the only cable that
supports the 3202 on the older sca300 flashes (like the 45cl4)
I had the combination for a few weeks, and to be honest, i had some
underexposure sometimes, especialy when bouncing the flash.
Als the metz sca adapter manual states that it supports ttl on the
e10/20 with this combination, there are some "drawbacks" it
supports ttl conditionally, the preflash (measuring flash), will
sometimes give a bad readout, and you will have to adjust
manually.page 10 of the manual.
But, as you didn't buy anything yet, you have alternatives.
If you like the metz quality (like i do) and want power, you can go
for the 70 series, or the 54mz3, both support the ttl optimal.
So what i did? Sold the 45cl4 with the special cable, and bought me
the 54mz3, and it works much better, exposure is constanly good now.
And it it cheaper also, more powerfull and compact, uses normal aa
batteries, 4 of them, not 6 like 45.
And the 54 flash, like the 70, is a modern flash, with digital lcd
readout, it suits the e10 much better.
Greetings
Rudy

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rudy de Geus said:

Very interesting indeed, this could be the reason that with the
small adjustments on the flash in auto mode, there was no visible
difference in the picture. Whish i had a flash-meter together with
the 45.
Dont know on the 54, havent tested this out, but then i only use it
in ttl mode, until now no need for adjustment, unlike the 45cl4.
But for sure, on the display it states iso 80, and follows the e10
very good in adjustments.
Thanks
Rudy

grc said:

Posted this elsewhere with ref. to the Metz45 CL4.

You may find the following of interest

On auto set at the appropriate aperture, and the gun set at iso 80
it under exposes, but set at iso 64 all is fine. So did some tests
and this is what resulted using a flash meter. Each unit on the
flash meter represents 1/3 stop. (Shepherd FM1000 meter)

iso 50 meter = 14
iso 64 14
iso 80 11
iso 100 11
iso 125 11
iso 160 9
iso 200 9
iso 250 9
iso 320 6
iso 400 6
iso 500 6

Basically setting the iso on the flashgun makes no effective
difference for several iso ranges, ie, the iso dial only changes
the output in 1 stop settings!! So in auto I think the gun is about
2/3 - 1 stop under exposing. To make the minor 1/3 stop changes
then this can only be done with the camera aperture. It would be
interesting to see if the same were true for the Metz 54

GRC

Rudy de Geus said:

Yes, you need the sca3000c cable, it is the only cable that
supports the 3202 on the older sca300 flashes (like the 45cl4)
I had the combination for a few weeks, and to be honest, i had some
underexposure sometimes, especialy when bouncing the flash.
Als the metz sca adapter manual states that it supports ttl on the
e10/20 with this combination, there are some "drawbacks" it
supports ttl conditionally, the preflash (measuring flash), will
sometimes give a bad readout, and you will have to adjust
manually.page 10 of the manual.
But, as you didn't buy anything yet, you have alternatives.
If you like the metz quality (like i do) and want power, you can go
for the 70 series, or the 54mz3, both support the ttl optimal.
So what i did? Sold the 45cl4 with the special cable, and bought me
the 54mz3, and it works much better, exposure is constanly good now.
And it it cheaper also, more powerfull and compact, uses normal aa
batteries, 4 of them, not 6 like 45.
And the 54 flash, like the 70, is a modern flash, with digital lcd
readout, it suits the e10 much better.
Greetings
Rudy

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

grc said:

That is exactly how I found out the details described in my
previous posting. Set on auto and iso 80 it under-exposed but on
iso 64 it was excellent. The difference between the iso 80 and 64
setting certainly did not expoin the relatively large differences
with the exposure. I can say that I have had no exposure problems
since I've had the gun using it on auto, bounce/non-bounce and set
at iso64.

I am waiting for Jaja to let us know how he is finding the SCA3202
adpter for the 45 CL4 and using ttl metering. He did mention that
there was someone using one and getting under-exposure - maybe this
is for the same reason.

Thanks for the info.

grc

Rudy de Geus said:

Very interesting indeed, this could be the reason that with the
small adjustments on the flash in auto mode, there was no visible
difference in the picture. Whish i had a flash-meter together with
the 45.
Dont know on the 54, havent tested this out, but then i only use it
in ttl mode, until now no need for adjustment, unlike the 45cl4.
But for sure, on the display it states iso 80, and follows the e10
very good in adjustments.
Thanks
Rudy

grc said:

Posted this elsewhere with ref. to the Metz45 CL4.

You may find the following of interest

On auto set at the appropriate aperture, and the gun set at iso 80
it under exposes, but set at iso 64 all is fine. So did some tests
and this is what resulted using a flash meter. Each unit on the
flash meter represents 1/3 stop. (Shepherd FM1000 meter)

iso 50 meter = 14
iso 64 14
iso 80 11
iso 100 11
iso 125 11
iso 160 9
iso 200 9
iso 250 9
iso 320 6
iso 400 6
iso 500 6

Basically setting the iso on the flashgun makes no effective
difference for several iso ranges, ie, the iso dial only changes
the output in 1 stop settings!! So in auto I think the gun is about
2/3 - 1 stop under exposing. To make the minor 1/3 stop changes
then this can only be done with the camera aperture. It would be
interesting to see if the same were true for the Metz 54

GRC

Rudy de Geus said:

Yes, you need the sca3000c cable, it is the only cable that
supports the 3202 on the older sca300 flashes (like the 45cl4)
I had the combination for a few weeks, and to be honest, i had some
underexposure sometimes, especialy when bouncing the flash.
Als the metz sca adapter manual states that it supports ttl on the
e10/20 with this combination, there are some "drawbacks" it
supports ttl conditionally, the preflash (measuring flash), will
sometimes give a bad readout, and you will have to adjust
manually.page 10 of the manual.
But, as you didn't buy anything yet, you have alternatives.
If you like the metz quality (like i do) and want power, you can go
for the 70 series, or the 54mz3, both support the ttl optimal.
So what i did? Sold the 45cl4 with the special cable, and bought me
the 54mz3, and it works much better, exposure is constanly good now.
And it it cheaper also, more powerfull and compact, uses normal aa
batteries, 4 of them, not 6 like 45.
And the 54 flash, like the 70, is a modern flash, with digital lcd
readout, it suits the e10 much better.
Greetings
Rudy

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rudy de Geus said:

The guy who had under-exposure problems was me, in ttl, only the
main flashhead bounced. In auto i did not have this problem. And
since i wanted the best possible combination, i swapped the 45cl4
for the 54mz3.

Greetings
Rudy

grc said:

That is exactly how I found out the details described in my
previous posting. Set on auto and iso 80 it under-exposed but on
iso 64 it was excellent. The difference between the iso 80 and 64
setting certainly did not expoin the relatively large differences
with the exposure. I can say that I have had no exposure problems
since I've had the gun using it on auto, bounce/non-bounce and set
at iso64.

I am waiting for Jaja to let us know how he is finding the SCA3202
adpter for the 45 CL4 and using ttl metering. He did mention that
there was someone using one and getting under-exposure - maybe this
is for the same reason.

Thanks for the info.

grc

Rudy de Geus said:

Very interesting indeed, this could be the reason that with the
small adjustments on the flash in auto mode, there was no visible
difference in the picture. Whish i had a flash-meter together with
the 45.
Dont know on the 54, havent tested this out, but then i only use it
in ttl mode, until now no need for adjustment, unlike the 45cl4.
But for sure, on the display it states iso 80, and follows the e10
very good in adjustments.
Thanks
Rudy

grc said:

Posted this elsewhere with ref. to the Metz45 CL4.

You may find the following of interest

On auto set at the appropriate aperture, and the gun set at iso 80
it under exposes, but set at iso 64 all is fine. So did some tests
and this is what resulted using a flash meter. Each unit on the
flash meter represents 1/3 stop. (Shepherd FM1000 meter)

iso 50 meter = 14
iso 64 14
iso 80 11
iso 100 11
iso 125 11
iso 160 9
iso 200 9
iso 250 9
iso 320 6
iso 400 6
iso 500 6

Basically setting the iso on the flashgun makes no effective
difference for several iso ranges, ie, the iso dial only changes
the output in 1 stop settings!! So in auto I think the gun is about
2/3 - 1 stop under exposing. To make the minor 1/3 stop changes
then this can only be done with the camera aperture. It would be
interesting to see if the same were true for the Metz 54

GRC

Rudy de Geus said:

Yes, you need the sca3000c cable, it is the only cable that
supports the 3202 on the older sca300 flashes (like the 45cl4)
I had the combination for a few weeks, and to be honest, i had some
underexposure sometimes, especialy when bouncing the flash.
Als the metz sca adapter manual states that it supports ttl on the
e10/20 with this combination, there are some "drawbacks" it
supports ttl conditionally, the preflash (measuring flash), will
sometimes give a bad readout, and you will have to adjust
manually.page 10 of the manual.
But, as you didn't buy anything yet, you have alternatives.
If you like the metz quality (like i do) and want power, you can go
for the 70 series, or the 54mz3, both support the ttl optimal.
So what i did? Sold the 45cl4 with the special cable, and bought me
the 54mz3, and it works much better, exposure is constanly good now.
And it it cheaper also, more powerfull and compact, uses normal aa
batteries, 4 of them, not 6 like 45.
And the 54 flash, like the 70, is a modern flash, with digital lcd
readout, it suits the e10 much better.
Greetings
Rudy

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

davidk said:

Cheers,
David

Rudy de Geus said:

The guy who had under-exposure problems was me, in ttl, only the
main flashhead bounced. In auto i did not have this problem. And
since i wanted the best possible combination, i swapped the 45cl4
for the 54mz3.

Greetings
Rudy

grc said:

That is exactly how I found out the details described in my
previous posting. Set on auto and iso 80 it under-exposed but on
iso 64 it was excellent. The difference between the iso 80 and 64
setting certainly did not expoin the relatively large differences
with the exposure. I can say that I have had no exposure problems
since I've had the gun using it on auto, bounce/non-bounce and set
at iso64.

I am waiting for Jaja to let us know how he is finding the SCA3202
adpter for the 45 CL4 and using ttl metering. He did mention that
there was someone using one and getting under-exposure - maybe this
is for the same reason.

Thanks for the info.

grc

Rudy de Geus said:

Very interesting indeed, this could be the reason that with the
small adjustments on the flash in auto mode, there was no visible
difference in the picture. Whish i had a flash-meter together with
the 45.
Dont know on the 54, havent tested this out, but then i only use it
in ttl mode, until now no need for adjustment, unlike the 45cl4.
But for sure, on the display it states iso 80, and follows the e10
very good in adjustments.
Thanks
Rudy

grc said:

Posted this elsewhere with ref. to the Metz45 CL4.

You may find the following of interest

On auto set at the appropriate aperture, and the gun set at iso 80
it under exposes, but set at iso 64 all is fine. So did some tests
and this is what resulted using a flash meter. Each unit on the
flash meter represents 1/3 stop. (Shepherd FM1000 meter)

iso 50 meter = 14
iso 64 14
iso 80 11
iso 100 11
iso 125 11
iso 160 9
iso 200 9
iso 250 9
iso 320 6
iso 400 6
iso 500 6

Basically setting the iso on the flashgun makes no effective
difference for several iso ranges, ie, the iso dial only changes
the output in 1 stop settings!! So in auto I think the gun is about
2/3 - 1 stop under exposing. To make the minor 1/3 stop changes
then this can only be done with the camera aperture. It would be
interesting to see if the same were true for the Metz 54

GRC

Rudy de Geus said:

Yes, you need the sca3000c cable, it is the only cable that
supports the 3202 on the older sca300 flashes (like the 45cl4)
I had the combination for a few weeks, and to be honest, i had some
underexposure sometimes, especialy when bouncing the flash.
Als the metz sca adapter manual states that it supports ttl on the
e10/20 with this combination, there are some "drawbacks" it
supports ttl conditionally, the preflash (measuring flash), will
sometimes give a bad readout, and you will have to adjust
manually.page 10 of the manual.
But, as you didn't buy anything yet, you have alternatives.
If you like the metz quality (like i do) and want power, you can go
for the 70 series, or the 54mz3, both support the ttl optimal.
So what i did? Sold the 45cl4 with the special cable, and bought me
the 54mz3, and it works much better, exposure is constanly good now.
And it it cheaper also, more powerfull and compact, uses normal aa
batteries, 4 of them, not 6 like 45.
And the 54 flash, like the 70, is a modern flash, with digital lcd
readout, it suits the e10 much better.
Greetings
Rudy

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rudy de Geus said:

The guy who had under-exposure problems was me, in ttl, only the
main flashhead bounced. In auto i did not have this problem. And
since i wanted the best possible combination, i swapped the 45cl4
for the 54mz3.

Greetings
Rudy

grc said:

That is exactly how I found out the details described in my
previous posting. Set on auto and iso 80 it under-exposed but on
iso 64 it was excellent. The difference between the iso 80 and 64
setting certainly did not expoin the relatively large differences
with the exposure. I can say that I have had no exposure problems
since I've had the gun using it on auto, bounce/non-bounce and set
at iso64.

I am waiting for Jaja to let us know how he is finding the SCA3202
adpter for the 45 CL4 and using ttl metering. He did mention that
there was someone using one and getting under-exposure - maybe this
is for the same reason.

Thanks for the info.

grc

Rudy de Geus said:

Very interesting indeed, this could be the reason that with the
small adjustments on the flash in auto mode, there was no visible
difference in the picture. Whish i had a flash-meter together with
the 45.
Dont know on the 54, havent tested this out, but then i only use it
in ttl mode, until now no need for adjustment, unlike the 45cl4.
But for sure, on the display it states iso 80, and follows the e10
very good in adjustments.
Thanks
Rudy

grc said:

Posted this elsewhere with ref. to the Metz45 CL4.

You may find the following of interest

On auto set at the appropriate aperture, and the gun set at iso 80
it under exposes, but set at iso 64 all is fine. So did some tests
and this is what resulted using a flash meter. Each unit on the
flash meter represents 1/3 stop. (Shepherd FM1000 meter)

iso 50 meter = 14
iso 64 14
iso 80 11
iso 100 11
iso 125 11
iso 160 9
iso 200 9
iso 250 9
iso 320 6
iso 400 6
iso 500 6

Basically setting the iso on the flashgun makes no effective
difference for several iso ranges, ie, the iso dial only changes
the output in 1 stop settings!! So in auto I think the gun is about
2/3 - 1 stop under exposing. To make the minor 1/3 stop changes
then this can only be done with the camera aperture. It would be
interesting to see if the same were true for the Metz 54

GRC

Rudy de Geus said:

Yes, you need the sca3000c cable, it is the only cable that
supports the 3202 on the older sca300 flashes (like the 45cl4)
I had the combination for a few weeks, and to be honest, i had some
underexposure sometimes, especialy when bouncing the flash.
Als the metz sca adapter manual states that it supports ttl on the
e10/20 with this combination, there are some "drawbacks" it
supports ttl conditionally, the preflash (measuring flash), will
sometimes give a bad readout, and you will have to adjust
manually.page 10 of the manual.
But, as you didn't buy anything yet, you have alternatives.
If you like the metz quality (like i do) and want power, you can go
for the 70 series, or the 54mz3, both support the ttl optimal.
So what i did? Sold the 45cl4 with the special cable, and bought me
the 54mz3, and it works much better, exposure is constanly good now.
And it it cheaper also, more powerfull and compact, uses normal aa
batteries, 4 of them, not 6 like 45.
And the 54 flash, like the 70, is a modern flash, with digital lcd
readout, it suits the e10 much better.
Greetings
Rudy

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

Smoke24 said:

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/smoke24/galleries

Click to expand...

Davidk said:

The 54MZ-3 and SCA3202 are working out pretty good so far.

Thanks again, Davidk

Smoke24 said:

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/smoke24/galleries

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Pierre Matte said:

Bye, Pierre

Davidk said:

The 54MZ-3 and SCA3202 are working out pretty good so far.

Thanks again, Davidk

Smoke24 said:

davidk said:

I just wanted to confirm what I need to get the E-10 and a Metz
45CL-4 to work together.

I've read about the SCA3202 Adapter - that's fine. However, is it
true that a SCA3000C cable is also required for this setup? I'm
also not sure about what feature are and are not supported with
this type of setup.

Is anyone using these together?

In Canada, with the 45CL-4 at $600, the SCA3202 at $130 and the
SCA3000C at $100 it's getting fairly expensive. With taxes, over a
$1000 for a flash.

To get the quality of the Metz 45CL-4, is this the best setup, or
is there another way to go?

Thanks, David

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/smoke24/galleries

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...