How many frames did you shoot with the Battery 2. I generally use mine the same way -- with a lumiquest bounce -- and I've never drained it completely. But I haven't shot a full wedding in decades. I think my most ambitious outing with flash has been around 300 frames. I'm also very careful to keep the battery conditioned. If I don't use it for a couple weeks, I put it on charge overnight anyway. It's a lead acid battery, so it's like a car battery. It needs frequent charging. Of course, any lead acid battery loses capacity over time. Paul On Feb 25, 2007, at 4:11 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> I just got back from shooting a wedding tonight and pretty much > drained my > battery 2 with the AF400T on Auto-Red. I use a Lumiquest Ultra Soft > Bounce that sucks up about 2 1/2- 3 stops of light, but does a very > good job of diffusing. But it put a big drain on the battery with > that much flash punch. Right now I am considering another battery 2 > to have as a spare. Tonight I could have used it. > > Still thinking about the 540FGZ. > > -- > Bruce > > > Saturday, February 24, 2007, 10:03:34 AM, you wrote: > > PS> The recycle time for the 540 FGZ is fairly good with fresh > batteries, > PS> and since the Nimh maintain a good charge for quite a while that > PS> works okay. I tried it with AAs, and that was a no go. I'm probably > PS> going to get the Pentax Power Pack III. Although right now, if I > had > PS> to shoot another wedding without the power pack, I'd probably go > with > PS> the AF 400T and the battery 2. There's nothing wrong with that > PS> combination, and while I can attest that the 540 FGZ provides good > PS> exposures, the AF 400T on auto does rather well. > PS> Paul > PS> On Feb 24, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > >>> That is one big difference - I usually have to shoot some >>> formal/posed >>> shots where they are aware of the camera. Sometimes I can use my >>> studio lights, but sometimes I have to use flash. >>> >>> I'm certainly considering picking up a 540FGZ and trying it out. I >>> will need faster recycle times, however. >>> >>> -- >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> Saturday, February 24, 2007, 2:35:03 AM, you wrote: >>> >>> PS> I've been using the Pentax 540 FGZP-TTL flash on the K10D. I >>> shot a >>> PS> wedding (about 300 frames) without a single blink. I also shot >>> that >>> PS> exercise class the other night, again without blinks. Exposures >>> were >>> PS> good. However, I shoot mostly candids and rarely tell anyone to >>> look >>> PS> at the camera. >>> PS> Paul >>> PS> On Feb 24, 2007, at 2:00 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: >>> >>>>> My issue with the pre-flash technique is that people who tend to >>>>> blink >>>>> can be a real problem. The pre-flash starts them into the blink >>>>> and >>>>> you end up with shots with their eyes not fully open. I believe >>>>> all >>>>> brands have the same problem. >>>>> >>>>> For weddings I was shooting TTL with the *istD and now shooting >>>>> Auto >>>>> on the flash with the K10D - using my AF400T's for the time >>>>> being. I >>>>> use the AF360FGZ's during the day for daylight fill flash. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Friday, February 23, 2007, 7:46:31 PM, you wrote: >>>>> >>>>> NW> For you (other) manual camera fans who might not have seen this >>>>> yet, I >>>>> NW> thought I'd mention that Vivitar has reintroduced their 285HV >>>>> flash >>>>> NW> units. They are selling brand new for just under $100 >>>>> currently. And >>>>> NW> they have trigger voltages of less than 6 volts, which means >>>>> they are >>>>> NW> safe to use on modern cameras too! Just got mine in the mail >>>>> the other >>>>> NW> day. In fact, I was so fed up with Canon's crazy ETTL I sold my >>>>> $300 >>>>> NW> Canon unit the day I heard the 285s were back! >>>>> >>>>> NW> And to put a vaguely Pentax spin on this post ... I'm curious >>>>> if >>>>> NW> Pentax's PTTL system is any good? A quick scan through the >>>>> archives >>>>> NW> found at least one person who wasn't so thrilled. I'd like to >>>>> hear >>>>> NW> more. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> NW> -- >>>>> NW> ~Nick Wright >>>>> NW> http://blog.phojonick.com/ >>>>> NW> http://www.phojonick.com/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
