I shot about 400 frames with it. It wasn't totally dead, but the recycle time had really dropped down. I had topped it off for about 10 hours on the charger before the wedding. I also re-celled it about 2 years ago.
-- Bruce Sunday, February 25, 2007, 5:10:13 AM, you wrote: PS> How many frames did you shoot with the Battery 2. I generally use mine PS> the same way -- with a lumiquest bounce -- and I've never drained it PS> completely. But I haven't shot a full wedding in decades. I think my PS> most ambitious outing with flash has been around 300 frames. I'm also PS> very careful to keep the battery conditioned. If I don't use it for a PS> couple weeks, I put it on charge overnight anyway. It's a lead acid PS> battery, so it's like a car battery. It needs frequent charging. Of PS> course, any lead acid battery loses capacity over time. PS> Paul PS> 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 >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
