I'm using batteries from both power pak and flash, as you are. Could be freshness of batteries in either one or you are not fully discharging. My method of testing was to set the flash to manual (full discharge) and then fire it from the test button.
I have the Lumiquest, Pocket Bouncer, UltraSoft and SoftBox. The Ultrasoft does the best with reducing hot spots, but sucks a lot of power. The Softbox still can create hot spots on the face especially at closer distances. None of them are versatile enough by themselves. I'll do some looking at the Gary Fong stuff (I did a year or so ago and just didn't get enough REAL information to make a move). I was thinking he had come out with a new version called a Whale Tail or some such. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 11:14:27 AM, you wrote: pcn> Hi Bruce, pcn> I use the Power Pak II with the 540 FGZ as well. I think my pcn> recycle times are a bit faster. I know I have it set to draw on pcn> both the in-flash batteries and teh Power Pak Ii simultaneously. pcn> There are some options for battery use. I don't remember how to pcn> set them, but it's in the 540 FGZ manual. pcn> I found when shooting a reception with the Lumiquest reflector pcn> that I had trouble getting enough distance for some shots. So I pcn> switched to the Lumiquest soft box. With the lightsphere I'm pcn> going to be able to switch from the heavy diffusion mode for pcn> close-in shots to a softbox mode just by tilting the head and pcn> shooting through the cover. I expect it to work great. It was pcn> designed for wedding shooters and seems to be the first choice of most these days. pcn> Paul pcn> -------------- Original message ---------------------- pcn> From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> The light loss is where my concern is. In some venues, that would >> not be an issue. But for a wedding, there are two big issues. One >> is distance - too much light loss and you are going to start >> underexposing. The other is recycle time for the flash. I don't >> consider the 4 AA batteries fast enough now with any kind of light >> modification. For the 540FGZ I am using the Pentax Power Pak II >> which brings recycle times down to about 2-3 seconds after a full >> power burst - still a little slow for things like processionals and >> such. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bruce >> >> >> Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 5:18:24 AM, you wrote: >> >> WH> I agree. Plus, it is a lot more compact. However, it does suck up a >> WH> LOT of light. I have to try the clear one at some time. >> >> WH> Walt >> >> WH> On 6/17/08, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Not that this is the reason you posted these two shots, but the >> >> Lightsphere >> exposure is more to my liking. >> >> >> >> Jack >> >> >> >> >> >> --- On Tue, 6/17/08, Walter Hamler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > From: Walter Hamler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > Subject: Lightsphere vs Lumiquest >> >> > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> >> >> > Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2008, 5:40 PM >> >> > Paul's thread got me to thinking. I have a Lightsphere, >> >> > the cloudy >> >> > looking version. I have tried it on the Sigma 500 flash >> >> > with poor >> >> > results that I attribute to P-TTL. May be wrong. >> >> > Anyway, today I purchased a Vivitar 283 and put the velcro >> >> > on it to >> >> > attach my Lumiquest bounce hood. The initial tests reminded >> >> > my again >> >> > why I liked the Vivitar and Sunpak flash units with the >> >> > simple auto >> >> > feature. >> >> > Then I decided to see how the Lightsphere would react. Not >> >> > bad, but >> >> > there are some subtle differences between the two. The >> >> > attached >> >> > photo's show. I believe each is captioned to show which >> >> > was which. >> >> > >> >> > Walt >> >> > >> >> > http://walthamler.smugmug.com/gallery/4592986_mrB5J#315094136_KwVvH-XL-LB >> >> > >> >> > http://walthamler.smugmug.com/gallery/4592986_mrB5J#315094132_wiZxw-XL-LB >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> > PDML@pdml.net >> >> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link >> >> > directly above and follow the directions. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> PDML@pdml.net >> >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> >> follow >> the directions. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow >> the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
