On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:10:06 -0600 "Tom Pfeiffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> The price is certainly right on the 160E, but I would look on eBay or
> elsewhere for a 200E instead. It will cost a little more, is a
> little more powerful, and uses regular (cheap) AA batteries unlike the
> (more) expensive (and harder-to-find) CR5 in the 160E. That's if you
> want to stick to Canon.
I've owned both 200E's and 160E's. I prefer the 160E *because* of the
2CR5 battery; its good for up to 4000 flashes and serves as a "spare" for
the camera. The 160E is capable of rapid-fire whereas the 200E is not.
Its *much* lighter that the 200E + AA cells and for macro use, its 16
meter guide number is more than adequate.
Dave Herzstein
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kjsl.com/~dave
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
