Okay, look here Dave - don't you have any GOOD reasons?
;<)
On a serious note, the original poster wasn't interested in macro work, but
indoor snapshots where the higher output of the 200E might be more
beneficial. OTOH, with a small Rebel body, it's hard to argue against small
and light.
tompc
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: EOS a humble enquiry from a humble beginner - flash
> 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
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
