Re: Flash for 67
Larson IIRC Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:24 PM Subject: Re: Flash for 67 degrees. > > Who makes the Sof'Shoulder? >
Re: Flash for 67
Paul, So what kind of bracket do you use? I currently have been using a Stroboframe Pro RT. This allows the flash to be flipped for verticals. I can't see how a potato masher could be hooked up to it. Bruce Thursday, April 3, 2003, 10:45:05 AM, you wrote: PS> I don't know who made the Sof'Shoulder. It's at least 25 years old, and PS> it may not be available any more. I think most of the AF400T units do PS> have the fully rotating head. But ask before you buy. When shooting with PS> the flash pointing forward, I generally use a bracket that places it PS> above the camera. Sometimes I use it with just the wide angle diffuser, PS> other times with a luiquest pro. PS> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> Paul, >> >> Sounds like I would have to know if it could swivel 180 degrees. >> >> Who makes the Sof'Shoulder? >> >> Have you considered any issue with using it to the side of the camera? >> Always a concern for side shadows. That is probaby my biggest concern >> at this point. >> >> Bruce >> >> Thursday, April 3, 2003, 10:01:45 AM, you wrote: >> >> PS> I use it on a reflector umbrella called the Sof'Shoulder. The flash >> PS> points to the rear and fires into the umbrella. Unfortunately, I can >> PS> only use it manually with this type of setup, since I have the early >> PS> AF400T that won't rotate a full 180 degrees. (I use a flashmeter.) >> PS> However, with the later model, a setup like this could be used in auto mode. >> >> PS> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> >> >> Paul, >> >> >> >> Very good information. I would be using this mostly for wedding work >> >> for flash fill in daytime and main lighting during evenings for the >> >> candids. I have typically used a flash bracket an Lumiquest Softbox >> >> to keep the redeye out and shadows out of the way. >> >> >> >> Do you have your AF400T on the standard bracket that hooks to the left >> >> side of the camera? What about shadow issues? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> Thursday, April 3, 2003, 8:09:03 AM, you wrote: >> >> >> >> PS> Hi Bruce, >> >> PS> I don't have the 500FTZ, but I use the AF400T regularly with my 6x7. I >> >> PS> frequently use it with a Sof'Shoulder reflector umbrella for portraits. >> >> PS> I have to turn the power down to 1/4 to get as wide as f11 with ISO 400 >> >> PS> film, so it certainly has plenty of punch. I use it with the Quantum >> >> PS> battery 2, which I bought used on ebay for $200 or thereabouts. I've >> >> PS> also used it with the wide angle diffuser and the 55/4 to shoot car >> >> PS> interiors and overhead shots of cars off of a ladder. I can easily >> >> PS> achieve good f16 coverage with ISO 100 using the flash as fill under an >> >> PS> overcast sky or as the main light for the interior shots. >> >> PS> Paul >> >> >> >> PS> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> 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
Re: Flash for 67
I don't know who made the Sof'Shoulder. It's at least 25 years old, and it may not be available any more. I think most of the AF400T units do have the fully rotating head. But ask before you buy. When shooting with the flash pointing forward, I generally use a bracket that places it above the camera. Sometimes I use it with just the wide angle diffuser, other times with a luiquest pro. Bruce Dayton wrote: > > Paul, > > Sounds like I would have to know if it could swivel 180 degrees. > > Who makes the Sof'Shoulder? > > Have you considered any issue with using it to the side of the camera? > Always a concern for side shadows. That is probaby my biggest concern > at this point. > > Bruce > > Thursday, April 3, 2003, 10:01:45 AM, you wrote: > > PS> I use it on a reflector umbrella called the Sof'Shoulder. The flash > PS> points to the rear and fires into the umbrella. Unfortunately, I can > PS> only use it manually with this type of setup, since I have the early > PS> AF400T that won't rotate a full 180 degrees. (I use a flashmeter.) > PS> However, with the later model, a setup like this could be used in auto mode. > > PS> Bruce Dayton wrote: > >> > >> Paul, > >> > >> Very good information. I would be using this mostly for wedding work > >> for flash fill in daytime and main lighting during evenings for the > >> candids. I have typically used a flash bracket an Lumiquest Softbox > >> to keep the redeye out and shadows out of the way. > >> > >> Do you have your AF400T on the standard bracket that hooks to the left > >> side of the camera? What about shadow issues? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Bruce > >> > >> Thursday, April 3, 2003, 8:09:03 AM, you wrote: > >> > >> PS> Hi Bruce, > >> PS> I don't have the 500FTZ, but I use the AF400T regularly with my 6x7. I > >> PS> frequently use it with a Sof'Shoulder reflector umbrella for portraits. > >> PS> I have to turn the power down to 1/4 to get as wide as f11 with ISO 400 > >> PS> film, so it certainly has plenty of punch. I use it with the Quantum > >> PS> battery 2, which I bought used on ebay for $200 or thereabouts. I've > >> PS> also used it with the wide angle diffuser and the 55/4 to shoot car > >> PS> interiors and overhead shots of cars off of a ladder. I can easily > >> PS> achieve good f16 coverage with ISO 100 using the flash as fill under an > >> PS> overcast sky or as the main light for the interior shots. > >> PS> Paul > >> > >> PS> Bruce Dayton wrote: > >> >> > >> >> 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
Re: Flash for 67
Paul, Sounds like I would have to know if it could swivel 180 degrees. Who makes the Sof'Shoulder? Have you considered any issue with using it to the side of the camera? Always a concern for side shadows. That is probaby my biggest concern at this point. Bruce Thursday, April 3, 2003, 10:01:45 AM, you wrote: PS> I use it on a reflector umbrella called the Sof'Shoulder. The flash PS> points to the rear and fires into the umbrella. Unfortunately, I can PS> only use it manually with this type of setup, since I have the early PS> AF400T that won't rotate a full 180 degrees. (I use a flashmeter.) PS> However, with the later model, a setup like this could be used in auto mode. PS> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> Paul, >> >> Very good information. I would be using this mostly for wedding work >> for flash fill in daytime and main lighting during evenings for the >> candids. I have typically used a flash bracket an Lumiquest Softbox >> to keep the redeye out and shadows out of the way. >> >> Do you have your AF400T on the standard bracket that hooks to the left >> side of the camera? What about shadow issues? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bruce >> >> Thursday, April 3, 2003, 8:09:03 AM, you wrote: >> >> PS> Hi Bruce, >> PS> I don't have the 500FTZ, but I use the AF400T regularly with my 6x7. I >> PS> frequently use it with a Sof'Shoulder reflector umbrella for portraits. >> PS> I have to turn the power down to 1/4 to get as wide as f11 with ISO 400 >> PS> film, so it certainly has plenty of punch. I use it with the Quantum >> PS> battery 2, which I bought used on ebay for $200 or thereabouts. I've >> PS> also used it with the wide angle diffuser and the 55/4 to shoot car >> PS> interiors and overhead shots of cars off of a ladder. I can easily >> PS> achieve good f16 coverage with ISO 100 using the flash as fill under an >> PS> overcast sky or as the main light for the interior shots. >> PS> Paul >> >> PS> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> >> >> 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
Re: Flash for 67
I use it on a reflector umbrella called the Sof'Shoulder. The flash points to the rear and fires into the umbrella. Unfortunately, I can only use it manually with this type of setup, since I have the early AF400T that won't rotate a full 180 degrees. (I use a flashmeter.) However, with the later model, a setup like this could be used in auto mode. Bruce Dayton wrote: > > Paul, > > Very good information. I would be using this mostly for wedding work > for flash fill in daytime and main lighting during evenings for the > candids. I have typically used a flash bracket an Lumiquest Softbox > to keep the redeye out and shadows out of the way. > > Do you have your AF400T on the standard bracket that hooks to the left > side of the camera? What about shadow issues? > > Thanks, > > Bruce > > Thursday, April 3, 2003, 8:09:03 AM, you wrote: > > PS> Hi Bruce, > PS> I don't have the 500FTZ, but I use the AF400T regularly with my 6x7. I > PS> frequently use it with a Sof'Shoulder reflector umbrella for portraits. > PS> I have to turn the power down to 1/4 to get as wide as f11 with ISO 400 > PS> film, so it certainly has plenty of punch. I use it with the Quantum > PS> battery 2, which I bought used on ebay for $200 or thereabouts. I've > PS> also used it with the wide angle diffuser and the 55/4 to shoot car > PS> interiors and overhead shots of cars off of a ladder. I can easily > PS> achieve good f16 coverage with ISO 100 using the flash as fill under an > PS> overcast sky or as the main light for the interior shots. > PS> Paul > > PS> Bruce Dayton wrote: > >> > >> 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
Re: Flash for 67
Paul, Very good information. I would be using this mostly for wedding work for flash fill in daytime and main lighting during evenings for the candids. I have typically used a flash bracket an Lumiquest Softbox to keep the redeye out and shadows out of the way. Do you have your AF400T on the standard bracket that hooks to the left side of the camera? What about shadow issues? Thanks, Bruce Thursday, April 3, 2003, 8:09:03 AM, you wrote: PS> Hi Bruce, PS> I don't have the 500FTZ, but I use the AF400T regularly with my 6x7. I PS> frequently use it with a Sof'Shoulder reflector umbrella for portraits. PS> I have to turn the power down to 1/4 to get as wide as f11 with ISO 400 PS> film, so it certainly has plenty of punch. I use it with the Quantum PS> battery 2, which I bought used on ebay for $200 or thereabouts. I've PS> also used it with the wide angle diffuser and the 55/4 to shoot car PS> interiors and overhead shots of cars off of a ladder. I can easily PS> achieve good f16 coverage with ISO 100 using the flash as fill under an PS> overcast sky or as the main light for the interior shots. PS> Paul PS> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> 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
Re: Flash for 67
Hi Bruce, I don't have the 500FTZ, but I use the AF400T regularly with my 6x7. I frequently use it with a Sof'Shoulder reflector umbrella for portraits. I have to turn the power down to 1/4 to get as wide as f11 with ISO 400 film, so it certainly has plenty of punch. I use it with the Quantum battery 2, which I bought used on ebay for $200 or thereabouts. I've also used it with the wide angle diffuser and the 55/4 to shoot car interiors and overhead shots of cars off of a ladder. I can easily achieve good f16 coverage with ISO 100 using the flash as fill under an overcast sky or as the main light for the interior shots. Paul Bruce Dayton wrote: > > 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
RE: Flash for 67
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > The Quantum Q-Flash is something that always held a > strange allure for me, > despite its' price. Anyone here ever used one? > I know Graywolf has a Norman; the Q-Flash appears to be a > Norman on steroids? They're very different. The Norman has no TTL or auto capabilities, and only 4 stops of power to choose from. The head itself is very light, lighter then a AF240. The B400 battery is gigantic and has 400WS of power. I use this one on a stand. There's also a B200. The Quantum has TTL and Auto capability and a billion stops of manual. The head itself has tilt/swivel. The T2 has 150WS of power, the X2 has 200 or 400WS depending on that pack. So, the Norman is basically a Portable studio light, the Quantum is like a 500FTZ on roids. The ultimate TTL capable flash is the Lumedyne Signature series, which can reliably do TTL up to 800ws, 1600WS if you're lucky. tv
Re: Flash for 67
The Quantum Q-Flash is something that always held a strange allure for me, despite its' price. Anyone here ever used one? I know Graywolf has a Norman; the Q-Flash appears to be a Norman on steroids? Kind regards Peter
Re: Flash for 67
I have the same flash and when its set to auto the batteries last for ages. On full they get used up pretty fast. The battery pack was hopeless and after a few months gave up the ghost. I always check with a flash meter, even when its not easy or convenient, it saves much grief. Once or twice in the past I've asked perfect strangers (in groups) to hold up the meter for me. Nowadays I don't do much of that kind of thing. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: "Mat Maessen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:33 PM Subject: Re: Flash for 67 > What about one of the Metz handle flashes? > I love my 45CT-4, it has PLENTY of power, and the auto (non-TTL) modes > are > pretty much spot on. > Only downside is that it does tend to eat AA batteries. I really need to > hunt > down some of the NiCD packs and a charger for it. > > -Mat > > Bruce Dayton wrote: > > > > 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. >
Re: Flash for 67
What about one of the Metz handle flashes? I love my 45CT-4, it has PLENTY of power, and the auto (non-TTL) modes are pretty much spot on. Only downside is that it does tend to eat AA batteries. I really need to hunt down some of the NiCD packs and a charger for it. -Mat Bruce Dayton wrote: > > 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.
Re: Flash for 67
What about one of the Metz handle flashes? I love my 45CT-4, it has PLENTY of power, and the auto (non-TTL) modes are pretty much spot on. Only downside is that it does tend to eat AA batteries. I really need to hunt down some of the NiCD packs and a charger for it. -Mat Bruce Dayton wrote: > > 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.
RE: Flash for 67
> -Original Message- > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > The Quantum T2 still looks great, but at twice the price. You can find Quantum T's used for pretty cheap. Keep an eye on ebay. Check the quantum site to see what the differences are...they're not a big deal for me, and in any case, Quantum can upgrade them to T2's. tv
Re: Flash for 67
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 >> >> >>
Re: Flash for 67
Got some experience with the two Pentax flashes on a Z-1, Bruce. the 500FTZ has more power than the 400T. However, I prefer the 400 for macro work, because it can quench the burst much faster that the 500 can. At 1:1 with a FA100/2.8 macro, the 500FTZ gives just too much, even on the widest zoom setting (24mm) at f/32. FWIW, Jostein - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:29 AM 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 > > >
