Good to know. That's probably about max then. How much did it cost to re-cell it? Did you do it yourself or send it to Quantum? Paul On Feb 25, 2007, at 11:57 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> 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 > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
