Hi Bruce, Yes, the Whale Tail is newer, and it's similar in concept to the lightsphere. I haven't met anyone who is using one yet. It seems to offer even more options than the lightsphere, but it may suck up more light. I don't know for certain. The Lightsphere is pretty much proven in use, so I'm going to have a go with it for now. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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" <[email protected]> > >> >> > 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 > >> >> > [email protected] > >> >> > 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 > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> 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 > >> [email protected] > >> 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 > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
