Hello Paul, I did the recell myself - was pretty simple. I used this company and the current cost is $29.95.
http://www.dasaga.com/quantum_battery.htm -- Bruce Monday, February 26, 2007, 3:05:42 AM, you wrote: PS> Good to know. That's probably about max then. How much did it cost to PS> re-cell it? Did you do it yourself or send it to Quantum? PS> Paul PS> 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
