Metz 60CT4 power pack setting for NiCad vs Dryfit

I have the Metz 60CT-4 with dryfit battery and yesterday I was going to turn it on to form the capacitor and found that the battery cracked and has only about 3V. So it's no good. I can't find anywhere to buy a replacement battery. I can't find any gel lead acid battery with similar electrical specs that would physically fit in the power pack. I know that the NiCad pack has 5 NiCad cells in it and it's relatively assemble a pack that would fit with NiMH cells. There is a setting in the battery compartment for NiCad or Dryfit but I don't know how to set it. Anyone has any idea?

I power up the unit using a bench power supply set for 6V and 3A current limit. It seems to work OK.

I'm not 100% sure about this since I never purchased from this seller, but you can find a replacement battery here: Metz Dryfit Battery Cell 60 Mz5320 for sale online | eBay

I'm not 100% sure about this since I never purchased from this seller, but you can find a replacement battery here: Metz Dryfit Battery Cell 60 Mz5320 for sale online | eBay

Thanks! I will consider that. It does require to use the charger that comes with the battery. The Metz charger won't work. Right now I got it working with the pack that I built.

Thanks! I will consider that. It does require to use the charger that comes with the battery. The Metz charger won't work. Right now I got it working with the pack that I built.

Expect long shipping times since they are coming from South-East Asia...

I'm not 100% sure about this since I never purchased from this seller, but you can find a replacement battery here: Metz Dryfit Battery Cell 60 Mz5320 for sale online | eBay

Most surprising thing is that they've sold 76 units.

There are 76 people in the world that still care enough about a Metz 60CT to spend $85 on a battery?!:eek:

Most surprising thing is that they've sold 76 units.

There are 76 people in the world that still care enough about a Metz 60CT to spend $85 on a battery?!:eek:

Yes I would! All the Nikon flashes don't have enough power for my need. They are typically GN120 @ ISO100 and 35mm coverage. I am considering Quantum flashes but they are quite expensive.

All the Nikon flashes don't have enough power for my need.

Use two!

They'll still be less bulky and weight less than a Metz CT60.... and recycle quicker.

Use two!

They'll still be less bulky and weight less than a Metz CT60.... and recycle quicker.

Using 2 for on camera flash is quite cumbersome.

The 5 cell NiMH 5000mAh I got are OK. Still have good power after 2 months so self discharge isn't all that bad. Compared to the dryfit it's about the same. Doesn't recycle any faster.

Yesterday I built a pack of Li-Ion using 4 18650 cells. They are in series/parallel configuration to get double the mA rating at 7.4 V. Fully charged the.voltage is quite high. I kinda worries a bit. It's about 7.9V open circuit. I does recycle the flash in half the time. Not sure I want to use it as it may stress the circuit too much. The NMH pack charged OK with the Metz charger but the Li-Ion must be removed and charged with my a different charger.

The 5 cell NiMH 5000mAh I got are OK. Still have good power after 2 months so self discharge isn't all that bad. Compared to the dryfit it's about the same. Doesn't recycle any faster.

Yesterday I built a pack of Li-Ion using 4 18650 cells. They are in series/parallel configuration to get double the mA rating at 7.4 V. Fully charged the.voltage is quite high. I kinda worries a bit. It's about 7.9V open circuit. I does recycle the flash in half the time. Not sure I want to use it as it may stress the circuit too much. The NMH pack charged OK with the Metz charger but the Li-Ion must be removed and charged with my a different charger.

Brave man!

The charging thing is what would put me off using cheap vaping 18650 Li-ion cells. (A good source of which is old laptop batteries BTW)

I have a set of 3 Godox 'Ving' Li-ion powered speedlights. They're a definite improvement over NiMH cells. But again, you're back being limited to the availability and price of a proprietry battery, just like those old Metz things.

Brave man!

The charging thing is what would put me off using cheap vaping 18650 Li-ion cells. (A good source of which is old laptop batteries BTW)

 

I have a set of 3 Godox 'Ving' Li-ion powered speedlights. They're a definite improvement over NiMH cells. But again, you're back being limited to the availability and price of a proprietry battery, just like those old Metz things.

I study the charging and found li-ion is actually easier to charge than NiMH. I use a programmable bench power supply.

I study the charging and found li-ion is actually easier to charge than NiMH.

Except NiMH cells aren't prone to thermal runaway and bursting into flames!

Metz 60CT flashes are getting old, but are well-made and very powerful – too good to discard when their normal batteries die and can’t be replaced. Lithium cells are common now, and have a high energy density – the 18650 type achieves a capacity of 3000mAh or more - but they do need careful handling. I’m down to my last good (rechargeable) lead battery, and my last decent Dryfit can’t recharge beyond 5.6v, though I have several dead ones (won’t recharge beyond a volt or two). A battery for a 60CT, containing removeable and rechargeable lithium cells, would be great to revive my old gear. A lithium battery replacement for the Metz 60-38 battery has appeared on an internet auction site, but is expensive, is not often listed, and no battery-protection mechanism is evident.

I decided to investigate a DIY solution, allowing individual cells to be removed for charging – a couple of pounds buys you a single cell USB powerbank incorporating battery protection. Here’s what I did . . .

Neatly saw top off Dryfit, 14mm from top, and remove contents. See here for detailed instructions (thank you, seller “vintagephotographica”). Drill out lead stubs of connecting pieces, to minimise accidental contact (leave the corner stubs of the + and – terminals [Mk 1 version has bolt-holes drilled through]). Cut away tops of partitions in lid.

Mk 1 version wasn’t very ambitious: two pairs of two cells in a reconstructed Dryfit case (partitions cut out). An 18650 cell slides smoothly into 21.5mm (o.d.) plastic overflow-pipe (giving good insulation), and two pairs of 72mm lengths of pipe, glued together, fit easily into the case.

http://file///C:/Ian/RetroRepairs/Battery/IMG_3417a.jpghttp://file///C:/Ian/RetroRepairs/Battery/IMG_3418a.jpg

Cell connections are brass paper-fasteners (8 needed). The tails of the top paper-fasteners are melted through oval 21mm x 43mm x 2mm plastic end-pieces, the end-pieces are glued onto the pipe, and tails are soldered to wires ending in ring-connectors.

http://file///C:/Ian/RetroRepairs/Battery/IMG_3419a.jpghttp://file///C:/Ian/RetroRepairs/Battery/IMG_3420a.jpg

Ring-connectors attach to countersunk-head bolts in holes drilled through the original + and – terminals in the lid. For the bottom connections, fasteners are threaded through 19mm rubber bath-tap washers, their tails are soldered together, and the washers are glued to another pair of plastic end-pieces covering the pipe-ends for complete insulation. The bottom end-pieces are loose, just held in place with rubber bands to allow easy removal of cells for recharging. To assemble, insert cells head-to tail in each pair, ensuring correct polarity; add bottom end-pieces and secure with rubber bands. Invert the wired cells in their pipes, drop the ring-connectors onto the bolts in the lid, and secure with nuts. Press together and check voltage, fit into 60CT case and test flash performance.

Mk 2 version has 50% greater capacity: three pairs of cells in a Dryfit case with partitions in place for insulation but the top 5mm of each partition cut away to make space for wiring.

http://file///C:/Ian/RetroRepairs/Battery/IMG_3425a.jpg

Two 18650 cells just fit into each of the three sections; however, to make insertion & removal easier the pairs are staggered and a little gouging of the case walls may be needed.

http://file///C:/Ian/RetroRepairs/Battery/IMG_3427a.jpghttp://file///C:/Ian/RetroRepairs/Battery/IMG_3430a.jpg

Each pair of cells sits in a simple cage comprising loose rectangular plastic end-pieces 17mm x 37mm with brass paper-fasteners as above, and an insulating piece between the cell cases (because casings are at different voltages when connected head-to-tail). End-pieces are notched in the middle and turned up at the corners to hold the batteries in place. The notches accept a thin cable-tie that holds each pair tightly without increasing cage width. Fit the three pairs in place and tuck loose ends of cable-ties into the spaces.

http://file///C:/Ian/RetroRepairs/Battery/IMG_3424a.jpg

The cages sit with the positive top-ends to the front of the Dryfit case, and negative top-ends to the rear; the three + tails are soldered to one wire, and the three – tails to another wire; wires should extend with springy loops or spirals which are bent to touch the lead terminal stubs when the lid is closed (and when it is forced further down as the 60CT battery-pack cover is pushed into place). The lid can be attached with a duct-tape “hinge”. Load battery into 60CT case and switch on – the red LED flashes merrily (slight over-voltage?) and connect a flash. Even using old 2600mAh laptop cells (identified here) recharge time was only a few seconds and the outfit seemed to remain healthy for several dozen flashes over a few minutes. That’s fine for me! For recharging in a powerbank, remove the entire contents of the Dryfit and push a cell out of its cage: everything drops apart easily.

Notes

Separate the casings of head-to-tail cell pairs using insulation, as casings are at different voltages when connected in series. Double-concave plastic pieces are built into some laptop battery packs.

Use stiff wire (solid copper, not stranded) everywhere to minimise heating during high current flow. Overheating of lithium batteries can cause fire or explosion. Ensure + and – wires never touch.

Ensure correct polarity of cells, to avoid damage to 60CT pack.

A battery protection system (BPS) board can help to recharge cells outside the battery. I made a 2-cell pack with BPS board rated at 20 amps, and it recharges cells fine - but that pack failed to work when fitted in the 60CT box. I don’t know why - perhaps something to do with current/voltage limitations during discharge.

I hope the pics get included - I've not contributed before! :-(

Aha! Drag & drop. Hope this clarifies my tinkering.

This is Mk 1

This is Mk 2

Metz 60CT flashes are getting old, but are well-made and very powerful

Very powerful?

Not according to my testing. They deliver precisely one stop more light output than a good hotshoe-mount speedlight; but with twice the weight and more than twice the bulk and about double the recycle time.

Here's the same subject, at the same distance, lit with 1) a Metz 60 CT-4, and 2) a Nikon SB-28 speedlight.

I had to raise the ISO to 200 to get the same exposure level with the SB-28 - Big deal!

All samples are SOOC with no adjustments except re-sizing.

As you can see, there's almost no difference in the quality or colour temperature of the light. And no shoulder pack to bother with using the SB-28, which takes readily available and cheap AA NiMH cells.

To show that one unit is or is not more powerfull than the other, images that show that both have enough power to handle a given situation say nothing at all. You are comparing the wrong things.

It's true, though, that for the extra weight and bulk, a CT 60 only provides one stop more than the smaller CT 45.

Comparisons with small on-camera units usually are biased by zoom-settings. You can put a lens in front of a CT 60 too, and it then will have more reach than most small units at their extremest zoom setting.

To show that one unit is or is not more powerfull than the other, images that show that both have enough power to handle a given situation say nothing at all. You are comparing the wrong things.

Now who's talking incomprehensible BS Chewbacca?

And if you think you can do better; where are your comparison pictures?

That's if you even possess a 60 CT-4, or another flash, or any other camera equipment for that matter.

It's true, though, that for the extra weight and bulk, a CT 60 only provides one stop more than the smaller CT 45.

The nomenclature of neither the 60CT nor the 45CT series mecablitzes reflect their true Guide Number or 'power'. In short, the 60CT series do not demonstrably provide one stop more light than the 45CT series in any practical situation.

Comparisons with small on-camera units usually are biased by zoom-settings. You can put a lens in front of a CT 60 too, and it then will have more reach than most small units at their extremest zoom setting.

The 'zoom' setting on the SB-28 was manually adjusted to approximate the same coverage as the 60CT-4, and in any case the zoom setting is largely irrelevant when a flash is bounced from a ceiling or wall.

Rodeo Clown, you manage again to post a reply that contains nothing but uninformed nonsense. It is all false.

Do you not get tired of having to find eays to spin your nonsense by inventing yet more nonsense, just to avoid being caught spouting nonsense, even though you so obviously and blatantly are?

What a dickhead you are Chewbacca. An armchair critic that's never taken a picture in their life by all evidence.

Just read a few outdated books perhaps?

Shut up or put up!

Edit - ooh. The '*' auto-censoring interpolation actually put it better than I could.

The 'zoom' setting on the SB-28 was manually adjusted to approximate the same coverage as the 60CT-4, and in any case the zoom setting is largely irrelevant when a flash is bounced from a ceiling or wall.

Now I found that is true but why? When I bounce I said when I bounce to the ceiling the light is going to spread out and I don't need as wide a coverage as direct flash. So I zoom to a longer focal length setting hoping I would get more light on the subject but it seems I don't.

Rodeo, If you want to demonstrate something using pictures, those pictures need to be of that something you want to demonstrate. Yours do not. They only show that in your setup both were able to provide what was needed. Not that there is a situation in which one could while the other could not. As mentioned before. It's not rocket science.

The Metz CT60 is indeed 1 stop more powerful as the Metz CT45. What you believe and say about that makes no difference. If you think it is demonstrably not so, do demonstrate. (And make sure this time that such a demonstration does demonstrate what is to be demonstrated).

What the zoom setting of your SB28 was is not important, because the photos do not show that one unit was more powerfull than the other, no matter what.

Your use of suggested profanity, name calling, and invitation to "shut up" is, well... not to be mistaken for an ad rem reply to matter of fact criticism.