Comparing dinosaurs: Metz60CT-4 & Quantum Qflash Model T

[lowep]

Both the Metz 60CT-4 (GN 197) and Quantum Model T Qflash (GN 160) are powerful old dinosaurs that run off their own battery packs. The Metz has a higher guide number but the surface area of the built in reflector looks considerably smaller than the scoop that comes with the Quantum.

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?

 

[boastudios]

Hi, there is no difference, once it goes through full diffusion or bounces.

I have been a user of 60 CT-4s since '88, and have three. So fast to work with, with 1/3 click stop dial on top going to 1/128 or 1/256. I mainly use in manual mode. Work great into umbrellas or Chimera softboxes with their mount. Have used them with 16x22" to 54 x72". I also bought some lighter-weight rechargeable packs especially fitting these, that I think are Lithium Ion, and they work well.

Back when I started to shoot for magazines, supporting my way through school, I would go around town on my bicycle, with two of these, radio slaves, two stands, and a softbox, with my film Hasselblad...all fitting into a LowePro backpack, and shoot spreads and covers.

 

[kdphotography]

I have a couple of Quantum Qflash T2---which is basically an updated Model T. Great quality light, fast and easy to use. The Qflash is an attractive portable lighting kit because it readily accepts many different lighting modifiers and is easily attached to a lightstand. Plays well with Pocket Wizards.

ken

 

[lowep]

.....there is no difference, once it goes through full diffusion or bounces....

Thanks boa and kd for answering my question.

Looks like both the Metz and the Quantum are both fine systems with differences mainly in the details rather than to do with the "quality" (evenness, softness) of light they produce, which seems to be not too negatively effected by the size of the Metz 60CT flash head if all the positive reports about it are true -- though have not heard from anyone who has had opportunity to compare both of them (flash) head to (flash) head.

I did read one comment on an ancient forum thread that a photog had complained to a dealer that his 60CT unit produced results with brighter concentration of light in the center of the picture and fall off towards the edges that according to him the dealer had confirmed was a problem with all these units so he swapped to a Quantum system and became a happy chappy as his problem disappeared - but maybe the problem arose because he was shooting the powerful 60CT flash straight at his subjects rather than bouncing or diffusing it; my guess is doing this would be softer with the Quantum that has a built in diffuser so perhaps the problem he mentioned is more more to do with the photographer than the gear (as usual).

Another question I have is how complicated and fiddly is it to deal with the dial on the top of the 60CT head? I understand all the theory but am not sure how easy it will be to navigate the (non-illuminated?) dials in a working situation compared to the Quantum's user friendly LCD?

 

[kdphotography]

Let me preface my following comments by stating I don't have any experience with the Metz 60CT, but I do have extensive experience with the Q.

Absent the use of larger modifiers, I simply like the round parabolic type reflector better than the squarish speedlite type reflectors. I find the quality light is more pleasing. You can easily remove the Q reflector and shoot barebulb (better for beauty dish light dispersion than rectangular-type flash heads), use different reflectors, use gels easily (slips between the two diffusion panels). I think of the Qs as a portable "bridge-system" that nicely straddles between speedlites and better studio lighting. Sometimes you want more than what speedlites offer; sometimes you just can't/want to haul around bigger studio lights.

The LCD panel is very easy to navigate---and if given the option, get the T2 over the model T. The T2 will "hold" your previous settings which is convenient.

I've never had a desire to use all the bells and whistles offered by the latest generations of Qflash, so never upgraded. IMHO, the quality of light from all the Qs is the same---so as long as you don't need the bells and whistles, that old dinosaur of a Qflash remains a reliable piece of portable quality light kit.

see, www.qtm.com

ken

 

[lowep]

that old dinosaur of a Qflash remains a reliable piece of portable quality light kit.

yes but :-( ...with still very expensive battery, right.

 

[lowep]

that old dinosaur of a Qflash remains a reliable piece of portable quality light kit.

yes but :-( ...with still very expensive battery (fair enough for quality kit)

 

[kdphotography]

that old dinosaur of a Qflash remains a reliable piece of portable quality light kit.

yes but :-( ...with still very expensive battery, right.

The Q can use any of the Quantum Turbo line of batteries. So with an original Turbo battery, it's actually pretty affordable. I've only had to recell my Turbos a couple times. Obviously the newer generation of Turbo batteries (Turbo 3 and Turbo sc) are more costly, and are more desireable considering their smaller size and weight. You can find affrodable used Turbo batteries and simply re-cell them if needed---and they will operate as new. I've never upgraded my Turbo batteries as I don't use the Qs that often now...

ken

 

[fotografz]

I've owned both flashes ...

I preferred the bare bulb flash over the speed-light design for most every application.

Try this test like I did ... use shoot through umbrellas and dial down the flash ... get on the other side of the umbrellas, stop down and shoot toward them so you can see the light pattern and concentration from the umbrellas.

It is also a lot easier to mount the bare-bulb units on camera to retain the light over the axis of the lens to drop shadows behind the subject. Plus even mounting a potato masher speed-light to a stand is more complex than with the more common configurations needed to mount the Q flash.

I like the bare-bulb with parabolic reflector, beautiful quality of light. Tons of different modifiers for the Q flash ... and most fit other bare-bulb units like the 120J and Hasselbald D40. I still use a 120J with all kinds of modifiers.

-Marc

 

[Sethboy]

I have been a user of 60 CT-4s ........ . I mainly use in manual mode. Work great into umbrellas mount. ....
.

I've had quite a bit of difficulty finding out proper information on how to mount a 60CT-4 onto an umbrella swivel. How do you normally mount yours to keep the flash head centered with the umbrella shaft? Do you use a standard umbrella swivel, or have you come across some kind of bracket or custom (or DIY) design?

Pictures links and info appreciated.

I've come across a few threads dealing with using the camera mount plate, turning it backwards, mounting sideways, all seems a bit confusing.

Thanks

 

[Kirk Candlish]

The 60 CT-4 has a 1/4 20 thread in the bottom of the handle. Mount a super clamp onto your light stand. Use an extension arm from the clamp to mount the flash. Tilt and swivel the head to center it in your umbrella.

http://www.manfrotto.us/product/8373.76812.76813.0.0/035/_/Super_Clamp_without_Stud

http://www.manfrotto.us/product/8373.77460.76891.0.0/042/_/Extension_Arm_with_013_Stud

 

[Nate in Maine]

.....there is no difference, once it goes through full diffusion or bounces....

Thanks boa and kd for answering my question.

Looks like both the Metz and the Quantum are both fine systems with differences mainly in the details rather than to do with the "quality" (evenness, softness) of light they produce, which seems to be not too negatively effected by the size of the Metz 60CT flash head if all the positive reports about it are true -- though have not heard from anyone who has had opportunity to compare both of them (flash) head to (flash) head.

I did read one comment on an ancient forum thread that a photog had complained to a dealer that his 60CT unit produced results with brighter concentration of light in the center of the picture and fall off towards the edges that according to him the dealer had confirmed was a problem with all these units so he swapped to a Quantum system and became a happy chappy as his problem disappeared - but maybe the problem arose because he was shooting the powerful 60CT flash straight at his subjects rather than bouncing or diffusing it; my guess is doing this would be softer with the Quantum that has a built in diffuser so perhaps the problem he mentioned is more more to do with the photographer than the gear (as usual).

Another question I have is how complicated and fiddly is it to deal with the dial on the top of the 60CT head? I understand all the theory but am not sure how easy it will be to navigate the (non-illuminated?) dials in a working situation compared to the Quantum's user friendly LCD?

---

I am writing in March 2022, to add this historical comparison of the Metz and Qflash strobes:

I started using the Metz 402 in 1983, then upgraded to the Metz 60CT series. I set the Metz units aside in 1993, when I transferred to a Qflash T2. I now use the Qflash Trio, with a T5d-r as remotes. The Trio works with HSS, but not the T5d-r, so I must compromise my aperture setting when using the T5d-r for an outdoor session.

The Metz units are super powerful, BUT . . . the power comes from concentration of the light. The Metz flash head is a small rectangle, which creates a very directed throw of light. There is distinct fall off at the edges, obviously. This is fine for a horizontal (landscape) subject, but is a real concern when photographing a vertical (portrait) subject.

This becomes an issue when using a flash bracket that rotates the camera body while the flash remains upright. The horizontal shape of the light output from the Metz becomes very obvious when the camera is in a vertical position.

I had to use the wide-angle diffuser on the Metz head to correct for this disparity.

The Qflash has a round output that does not affect the light fall off as viewed by the camera.

While the Qflash does not have as much power as the Metz, since it is not nearly as "focused", the overall quality of the light striking my subject is softer and more pleasing.

I have stayed with the Qflash, and the latest digital technology has compensated for the lower power of the Qflash when compared to the Metz.

 

[KC_2020]

---

I am writing in March 2022, to add this historical comparison of the Metz and Qflash strobes......

While the Qflash does not have as much power as the Metz, since it is not nearly as "focused", the overall quality of the light striking my subject is softer and more pleasing.

I have stayed with the Qflash, and the latest digital technology has compensated for the lower power of the Qflash when compared to the Metz.

Metz made a bracket that clipped onto the top of the 60 CT-4 right behind the head. It allowed you to place a bounce card over the head at a 45 degree angle to soften the light. It even tiled up with the head so you could bounce at higher angle and use the ceiling if you wanted to diffuse the light even more. I shot a lot of event / reportage work with that light on a Leica R4 and a Hasselblad 503. The 503 had a jack for a Metz adapter that allowed true TTL off the film. A sensor inside the body was pointed right at the film. I used the white side of a 8X10 grey card, a common thing to be carrying back then, to bounce off and it produced a very nice light. It was kind of a beast to use in a crowd though.

I still have a Q flash here somewhere. It was a decent light too. Take off the standard reflector, put on the half circumference metal tube they sold, point the tube straight up and you had bare tube with all the light concentrated to the front. Great for a more specular light outside, less power loss than bouncing too.

Light is light. Old technology doesn't have to limit you if you're creative.

 

[MGrayson]

Ye Gods! And I thought the 70 MZ-5 was overpowered. That 60 CT-4 is a monster.