Jostein, Thanks for the info.
As near as I can tell, the 400T has a GN of 40 at an effective coverage of 28mm. My manual for the 360FGZ says that it has a GN of 36 when zoomed to 85mm coverage, GN 30 at 50mm and GN 22 at 28mm. Based on that, it seems that the 400T actually has about twice the power of the 360FGZ. I am wondering how the 400T would compare to the 500FTZ. In other words, what are the GN's at different zoom coverage? The Quantum T2 still looks great, but at twice the price. Thanks for any and all thoughts and information. Bruce Tuesday, April 1, 2003, 4:04:55 PM, you wrote: J> Got some experience with the two Pentax flashes on a Z-1, Bruce. J> the 500FTZ has more power than the 400T. However, I prefer the 400 for J> macro work, because it can quench the burst much faster that the 500 J> can. At 1:1 with a FA100/2.8 macro, the 500FTZ gives just too much, J> even on the widest zoom setting (24mm) at f/32. J> FWIW, J> Jostein J> ----- Original Message ----- J> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> J> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> J> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:29 AM J> Subject: Flash for 67 >> I am looking for more flash power than my AF360FGZ's for use with my >> 67II. I have been considering the Quantum T2 Flash system but it is >> quite costly. I am wondering if anyone has used/compared the AF400T >> potato masher unit to the 500FTZ. Keep in mind that I would not use >> the 500FTZ zoomed all the way. >> >> Any experience out there in Pentax land? >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >>
