What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

For years the professionals in the photo industry have been powering their
flashes with Quantum Battery packs

And as they swiched over to digital photography so did their Quantum
Batteries.

And as the pros discovered that the batteries in their digital cameras
weren't lasting as long as they needed Quantum started producing products to
power the new cameras AT THE SAME TIME it powered the flash.

One battery, two cords - one to the camera - one to the flash.

http://www.qtm.com/

Not that I don't use NI-MH batteries.

For family stuff I do.

But when you need your camera and flash to be recycled and powered up from
the beginning of a long session till the end without stopping to change
batteries... Quantum's the way to go.

The better camera stores stock Quantum products... let a salesman show you
what Quantum can do for you.

Best, Dan Sullivan

 

In article <VcXIb.24956$>,
Dan Sullivan says...

> For years the professionals in the photo industry
> have been powering their flashes with Quantum
> Battery packs

Is that a question? In that case: No. Not all of them.
Many professionals then and now are using NiCd cells
or NiMH cells and don't bother with a separate device
with extra cables and shoulder strap.

> And as the pros discovered that the batteries in
> their digital cameras weren't lasting as long as
> they needed

Then they probably picked the wrong tool. I can shoot
hundreds of photos with one battery set in my EOS DSLR.

Are you sure you are not being paid by Quantum to
post that much of advertising?

--
Michael Quack <>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm

 

"Michael Quack" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In article <VcXIb.24956$>,
> Dan Sullivan says...
>
> > For years the professionals in the photo industry
> > have been powering their flashes with Quantum
> > Battery packs
>
> Is that a question? In that case: No. Not all of them.

I didn't say "all."

> Many professionals then and now are using NiCd cells
> or NiMH cells and don't bother with a separate device
> with extra cables and shoulder strap.

I said in my post I use NiMH batteries for certain things.

And I use NiCads, as well.

BTW the Bantam, the Battery 1+, and the Turbo Compact Batteries mount to the
camera's tripod socket.

And the batteries that could be used with a shoulder strap many
photographers simply clip them to their belt.

(I don't like shoulder straps)

> > And as the pros discovered that the batteries in
> > their digital cameras weren't lasting as long as
> > they needed
>
> Then they probably picked the wrong tool. I can shoot
> hundreds of photos with one battery set in my EOS DSLR.

Good for you.

> Are you sure you are not being paid by Quantum to
> post that much of advertising?

Not a penny.

I've also recommended Ansmann Ni-MH battery chargers... Tenba bags... white
umbrellas... whatever I know would make a photographer's life easier or
their pictures better.

Benbo tripods. Velbon tripods. Gitzo tripods. Leica ballheads. Manfrotto
monopods. Lumiquest Pocket Bouncers. Osram flashes. Vivitar 283s, 285s.
Justrite brackets. Stroboframe brackets. Canon cameras. Fuji 645AF. Olympus
digital cameras. Pentax Spotmatics. Kenko soft focus lenses. Pentax
binoculars. Sigma cameras and lenses. Crumpler bags. Apacer Disc Steno
portable CD burner. (this is the stuff in my living room)

I recommend all of these products... to the people who they'd help.

With the posts I read about camera and flash battery problems I simply
posted some information and suggested "let a salesman show you what Quantum
can do for you."

This just showed up on the NG,

"We have recently started using new Nikon D-100's at work and I love this
new
camera. However, I have found that the SB-80DX flash goes through regular
alkaline batteries fast. I was thinking about trying NiMH batteries with
the
flash. Has anyone tried rechargable batteries with digital flashes? If so,
was their lifetime longer than non-rechargable batteries?"

Do you think there's something wrong with letting this guy know that there's
a battery system that powers not only his flash but his camera at the same
time?

If what I recommend isn't for you... fine.

But as a wise man once said "Sharing produces growth."

Have fun, Dan Sullivan

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digitalcameras.

On 1/2/04 7:48 PM, in article ,
"Michael Quack" <> wrote:

> In article <VcXIb.24956$>,
> Dan Sullivan says...
>
>> For years the professionals in the photo industry
>> have been powering their flashes with Quantum
>> Battery packs
>
> Is that a question? In that case: No. Not all of them.
> Many professionals then and now are using NiCd cells
> or NiMH cells and don't bother with a separate device
> with extra cables and shoulder strap.
>
>> And as the pros discovered that the batteries in
>> their digital cameras weren't lasting as long as
>> they needed
>
> Then they probably picked the wrong tool. I can shoot
> hundreds of photos with one battery set in my EOS DSLR.
>
> Are you sure you are not being paid by Quantum to
> post that much of advertising?

Quack, you ARE an absolute idiot!

If one wants to use a low ISO or ISO film for better enlargements, one NEEDS
more flash power.

Professionals DO use external battery packs, for the reasons I gave above
AND for FASTER recycle time to catch the next photoOp, ASAP.

Quack, you are truly Quacked. What a full of crap Euro Goose that you are!

So, while your little double AA's are frying and taking 15-25 seconds to
recharge, if they can, my 510v. Quantum is ready to go in less than a
second.

Sorry if your wimp ass doesn't want to carry a PRO battery pack because you
don't want to 'deal' with it. IF you are getting paid to do a professional
job, please 'act' like one.

 

In article <TBrJb.93$>,
Dan Sullivan says...

> > > For years the professionals in the photo industry
> > > have been powering their flashes with Quantum
> > > Battery packs
> >
> > Is that a question? In that case: No. Not all of them.
>
> I didn't say "all."

"The professionals" sounds pretty absolute to me.....

> > Many professionals then and now are using NiCd cells
> > or NiMH cells and don't bother with a separate device
> > with extra cables and shoulder strap.
>
> I said in my post I use NiMH batteries for certain things.
>
> And I use NiCads, as well.

Which might mean you are not a professional, given
that after your statements the professionals don't.

> BTW the Bantam, the Battery 1+, and the Turbo Compact
> Batteries mount to the camera's tripod socket.

....making the camera very heavy. I like heavy cameras,
but at a certain point extra weight gets counterproductive.
When I'm shooting nightlife, the combo 10D/Big Ed/2.8/20-35
and Metz 45 flash are heavy enough. I don't need any extra
ballast.

> And the batteries that could be used with a shoulder
> strap many photographers simply clip them to their belt.

Which still leaves the extra cord as a source of problems.

> > Are you sure you are not being paid by Quantum to
> > post that much of advertising?
>
> Not a penny.

Okay, then. Just sounded a bit too absolute in
your original post for me.

> I've also recommended (...)

> I recommend all of these products... to the
> people who they'd help.

You had maybe done good by also mentioning the
comparatively high cost and extra bulk just to
round off your advice.

> With the posts I read about camera and flash battery
> problems I simply posted some information and suggested
> "let a salesman show you what Quantum can do for you."

That wasn't what it sounded like. It was more like
"Professionals use this, period".

> However, I have found that the SB-80DX flash goes through
> regular alkaline batteries fast. I was thinking about
> trying NiMH batteries with the flash.
(...)

> Do you think there's something wrong with letting this guy
> know that there's a battery system that powers not only his
> flash but his camera at the same time?

Not if you don't start with overkill equipment but instead
start with the obvious and wise thing to do: NiCd cells
or NiMH cells with appropriate chargers like Ansmann or Maha.
Mention the self discharge level of NiMH cells, the better
performance of NiCd in low temperatures and the higher
capacities of NiMH at very reasonable prices and you did
a good job. After that you can still mention the Quantum,
which from his point of view (just using regular alkalines
easily shows he's a beginner) is certainly pure overkill.

> But as a wise man once said "Sharing produces growth."

Right. Which is why I share a bit of caution about
too absolute appraisals of products.

One or two sets of high capacity NiMH cells with a good
charger should do for the original poster. In case of
use in low temperatures or long storage without use
maybe NiCd would be better because they simply perform
better in this profile.

--
Michael Quack <>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

In article <BC1BA97E.2E11C%>,
George Kerby says...

> Quack, you ARE an absolute idiot!

Now here we start a nice educated discussion,
backed up with loads of facts...... er, insults
on your side.

> If one wants to use a low ISO or ISO film for
> better enlargements, one NEEDS more flash power.

Hmm. The guide number is not changing with the
battery used. More flash power? Faster recycle
times would be achievable, yes. More flash
power, no.

> Professionals DO use external battery packs,

Some do, but certainly not all, as Dan's posting
seems to suggest.

> ..for the reasons I gave above

Which are dead wrong.

> AND for FASTER recycle time

Which is the only reason apart from high
capacity batteries.

But bear in mind that many flash guns will
fry when used at max output in fast firing
sequence. After a certain number of flashes
any handheld/portable flash unit will need
time to cool down or it will inevitably fry.

(more mindless insults snipped)

> So, while your little double AA's are frying
> and taking 15-25 seconds to recharge, if they
> can, my 510v.

I am using either AA cells (I think you mean
double A?) or D cells in my Metz guns. Recycle
times are at 6 seconds maximum if full power
flash output was used.

> Quantum is ready to go in less than a second.

Which might result in a fried flash in the long run.

> Sorry if your wimp ass doesn't want to carry
> a PRO battery pack

For long shootings over long hours several sets
of AA cells are indeed much more handy to use.
Good for you if you are pumping iron next to the
Gropinator, but there are certainly more people
not willing to pack yet another kilogram of batteries.

> IF you are getting paid to do a professional
> job, please 'act' like one.

I do. I check what the reasonable thing to do would be.
Spewing insults with little to no substance in facts like
you do is certainly no way to create the impression of
a knowledgeable person.

And you forget that using flash in combination with
low speed film will lead to flash only pictures, which
will in return often be very dull in atmosphere, and
very flat in lighting with a number of extra disadvantages.

Yes, you can enlarge that crap to bigger prints.
But it will remain crap. Just like your foul language.

--
Michael Quack <>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

"Michael Quack" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In article <BC1BA97E.2E11C%>,
> George Kerby says...
>
> > Quack, you ARE an absolute idiot!
>
> Now here we start a nice educated discussion,
> backed up with loads of facts...... er, insults
> on your side.

Oh.

You're gonna use facts, Mr. Quack?

We'll see.

> > If one wants to use a low ISO or ISO film for
> > better enlargements, one NEEDS more flash power.
>
> Hmm. The guide number is not changing with the
> battery used.

Shooting with the flash in manual mode will give the photographer more flash
power and a smaller f-stop.

Or the photograher could use a lower ISO, the same f-stop, and get better
pictures

And the flash will recycle faster for a MUCH longer time with a Quantum
Battery than a set of AA Ni-MH.

That's a fact, Mr. Quack.

> More flash power? Faster recycle
> times would be achievable, yes. More flash
> power, no.

More flash power, yes.

> > Professionals DO use external battery packs,
>
> Some do, but certainly not all, as Dan's posting
> seems to suggest.

"...seems to suggest..."

is that the same as

"...loads of facts?"

And BTW I never used the word "all."

And neither did George Kirby.

That's a fact, Mr. Quack.

> > ..for the reasons I gave above
>
> Which are dead wrong.

Sorry.

YOU are incorrect, Mr. Quack.

See above.

> > AND for FASTER recycle time
>
> Which is the only reason apart from high
> capacity batteries.

Wrong again, Mr. Quack.

See above.

> But bear in mind that many flash guns will
> fry when used at max output in fast firing
> sequence.

I've never had that happen and never have seen it happen to anyone else
while using a Quantum battery.

That's a fact, Mr. Quack.

> After a certain number of flashes
> any handheld/portable flash unit will need
> time to cool down or it will inevitably fry.

I've never had that happen and never have seen it happen to anyone else
while using a Quantum battery.

That's a fact, Mr. Quack.

> (more mindless insults snipped)

Can you really insult someone named Mr. Quack?

> > So, while your little double AA's are frying
> > and taking 15-25 seconds to recharge, if they
> > can, my 510v.
>
> I am using either AA cells (I think you mean
> double A?) or D cells in my Metz guns. Recycle
> times are at 6 seconds maximum if full power
> flash output was used.

Well, if you need to shoot on full power and need a recycle time faster than
six seconds... I would suggest switching to a Quantum Battery.

> > Quantum is ready to go in less than a second.
>
> Which might result in a fried flash in the long run.

I've never had that happen and never have seen it happen to anyone else.

And just because your flash recycles in a second doesn't mean you have to
shoot every second.

That's a fact, Mr. Quack.

> > Sorry if your wimp ass doesn't want to carry
> > a PRO battery pack
>
> For long shootings over long hours several sets
> of AA cells are indeed much more handy to use.

"...several sets... much more handy..."

Really???

The first job I ever used a Quantum Battery on I normally would have had a
pocket full of batteries like you.

But I never slowed down or stopped to change batteries.

I never even broke a sweat.

When the job was over I realized the Quantum Battery was a major advancement
for photographers who needed to shoot uninterrupted over a long period.

You didn't have to shoot on AUTO to get the recycle time you needed anymore.

You could shoot on manual, get smaller f-stops, and better pictures.

And it didn't look like you were carrying two pounds of rocks in each pocket
of your tux.

> Good for you if you are pumping iron next to the
> Gropinator, but there are certainly more people
> not willing to pack yet another kilogram of batteries.

"...more people..."

Is that a fact, Mr. Quack?

> > IF you are getting paid to do a professional
> > job, please 'act' like one.
>
> I do. I check what the reasonable thing to do would be.

You don't think that what's reasonable to you has to be reasonable to
everyone else, do you?

Thousands upon thousands of photographers power their flashes with Quantum
Batteries.

Are they unreasonable?

Or have they found something that makes their lives and photographs better?

> Spewing insults with little to no substance in facts like
> you do is certainly no way to create the impression of
> a knowledgeable person.

Well, if you're gonna call Quantum Batteries "overkill" you should (as you
wanted me to do) explain all the deficiencies of using AA batteries.

Namely pockets filled with batteries.

Dying at the worst possible time (don't they always).

Possibly inserting them incorrectly into the flash at the worst possible
time.

Having a defective battery which you don't know about because you bought the
most "reasonable" (read cheap) charger you could find.

I'll let you go into detail about all the other drawbacks of AA batteries.

How many extra batteries do you take to a job BTW, Mr. Quack?

How many times do you stop shooting to change batteries, Mr. Quack?

> And you forget that using flash in combination with
> low speed film will lead to flash only pictures, which
> will in return often be very dull in atmosphere, and
> very flat in lighting with a number of extra disadvantages.

Extra disadvantages?

Like minimal grain or minimal noise?

> Yes, you can enlarge that crap to bigger prints.
> But it will remain crap. Just like your foul language.

Selling bigger prints along with smaller prints is more profitable than
selling smaller prints alone.

Or are you not in the business to make money, Mr. Quack?

Have fun and make as much money as you can.

Then go buy a Quantum Battery and leave your AA rechargable batteries for
your flashlights and remote controlled cars.

;-P

Dan Sullivan

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digitalcameras.

On 1/3/04 8:25 AM, in article
khAJb.6936$, "Dan Sullivan"
<> wrote:


>
> That's a fact, Mr. Quack.
>
That's a 'catchy' phrase. I LIKE it!!!
>
>> (more mindless insults snipped)
>
> Can you really insult someone named Mr. Quack?

LOL!!!

Like I said before, Quack is cracked.
A foul fowl, indeed.
AFLACK!

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

x-no-archive:yes

"Dan Sullivan" <> wrote:

>> > If one wants to use a low ISO or ISO film for
>> > better enlargements, one NEEDS more flash power.
>>
>> Hmm. The guide number is not changing with the
>> battery used.
>
>Shooting with the flash in manual mode will give the photographer more flash
>power and a smaller f-stop.

But it still does not give the flash more output.

>
>Or the photograher could use a lower ISO, the same f-stop, and get better
>pictures

Again, the battery does not increase the flash output. Where are you
getting that from? Please tell us all how you have defied the laws of
physics?

>And the flash will recycle faster for a MUCH longer time with a Quantum
>Battery than a set of AA Ni-MH.

Well, it depends on the AA batteries and the Quantum pack, not true as
a blanket statement. For example even 1,800mAh AA cells blow away the
Quantum Bantam pack in real life performance, which is only 1,200 mAh.
Try it. In fact there is no discernable difference in run times with
Nikon SB26, Sunpak 120 and Vivitar 285 strobes between the Digipower
2300mAh batteries I now use and the Quantum 1 batteries I have. I
carry a spare set, but rarely, I mean *rarely* need them regardless of
mode. Try it, you'll see. It's simply not worth carrying a bulky
battery with an attached cable when the NiMH batteries work so well.
One set in the strobe with one set in my pocket (again, hardly needed)
beats the Quantum 1 hands down. You're probably comparing 600mAh NiCDs
from long ago.

I'm not dissing Quantum, I have 5 Battery 1's, 3 Turbos (needed for
the Q-flashes), 2 Bantams, a Battery 2 and a Quantum Ham radio
battery. I've used Quantum batteries since they started making them.
Except for the Turbos they're simply not needed for portable flash
nowadays. I still use them, but only for convenience with remote
strobes on stands that need to be turned on and off from the battery,
or for running multiple stobes from the same pack. Do you honestly
think a Battery 1 with module and cable is easier to carry than a
spare set of 4 AA's in the pocket? News flash: it doesn't work any
better, I have them all and can use whatever I want and use them
full-time professionally, I'm not one of your "weekend warriors" or
hobbyists. My strobes get hard use, I wear them out, same with the
batteries. Since hi-cap NiMH have been on the market most of the
Quantums sit on the shelf (except for the Q-flashes that require the
Turbos.)

>That's a fact, Mr. Quack.
>
>> More flash power? Faster recycle
>> times would be achievable, yes. More flash
>> power, no.
>
>More flash power, yes.

duh...more flash power, no. Faster recycling, yes. Absolutely not a
bit of extra output. None. Nada. Zip. You're just sounding foolish
here. It's painfully obvious that you have no idea what you're talking
about.

>> After a certain number of flashes
>> any handheld/portable flash unit will need
>> time to cool down or it will inevitably fry.
>
>I've never had that happen and never have seen it happen to anyone else
>while using a Quantum battery.

You apparently have never used a Quantum Turbo, or even a battery 1
with the strobe flashing as fast as the battery can keep up. How about
asking Quantum? They warn of it. You're so wrong here. Tell you what:
fire up your favorite strobe and fire it as fast as you can in full
power mode with a Quantum Turbo battery. See how long it takes to fry.
What an idiot. Unbelievable, you are either clueless or the most rank
amateur. No one who uses Quantum or other outboard packs for a living
would say such a thing. Again, did you even read the manual that came
with your Quantum pack? Or your strobe?

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

<don'> wrote in message news:3ff78b72.160167837@127.0.0.1...
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote:
>
> >> > If one wants to use a low ISO or ISO film for
> >> > better enlargements, one NEEDS more flash power.
> >>
> >> Hmm. The guide number is not changing with the
> >> battery used.
> >
> >Shooting with the flash in manual mode will give the photographer more
flash
> >power and a smaller f-stop.
>
> But it still does not give the flash more output.

If a photographer needs to shoot in AUTO with AA batteries to get the
recycle time he needs he could shoot with a Quantum Battery on manual at a
smaller f stop at the same distance and get the same recycle time.

I'm not referring to the first 50 flashes.

I'm referring to 200 manual flashes without changing batteries.

Is the flash putting out more light for a proper exposure at f 11 at ten
feet or f 5.6 at ten feet?

> >Or the photograher could use a lower ISO, the same f-stop, and get better
> >pictures
>
> Again, the battery does not increase the flash output. Where are you
> getting that from? Please tell us all how you have defied the laws of
> physics?

Shooting with the flash on manual as opposed to AUTO increases the flash
output.

> >And the flash will recycle faster for a MUCH longer time with a Quantum
> >Battery than a set of AA Ni-MH.
>
> Well, it depends on the AA batteries and the Quantum pack, not true as
> a blanket statement. For example even 1,800mAh AA cells blow away the
> Quantum Bantam pack in real life performance, which is only 1,200 mAh.
> Try it.

How 'bout the Battery 1 at 200 manual flashes?

> In fact there is no discernable difference in run times with
> Nikon SB26, Sunpak 120 and Vivitar 285 strobes between the Digipower
> 2300mAh batteries I now use and the Quantum 1 batteries I have. I
> carry a spare set, but rarely, I mean *rarely* need them regardless of
> mode. Try it, you'll see. It's simply not worth carrying a bulky
> battery with an attached cable when the NiMH batteries work so well.
> One set in the strobe with one set in my pocket (again, hardly needed)
> beats the Quantum 1 hands down. You're probably comparing 600mAh NiCDs
> from long ago.
>
> I'm not dissing Quantum, I have 5 Battery 1's, 3 Turbos (needed for
> the Q-flashes), 2 Bantams, a Battery 2 and a Quantum Ham radio
> battery. I've used Quantum batteries since they started making them.
> Except for the Turbos they're simply not needed for portable flash
> nowadays. I still use them, but only for convenience with remote
> strobes on stands that need to be turned on and off from the battery,
> or for running multiple stobes from the same pack. Do you honestly
> think a Battery 1 with module and cable is easier to carry than a
> spare set of 4 AA's in the pocket? News flash: it doesn't work any
> better, I have them all and can use whatever I want and use them
> full-time professionally, I'm not one of your "weekend warriors" or
> hobbyists. My strobes get hard use, I wear them out, same with the
> batteries. Since hi-cap NiMH have been on the market most of the
> Quantums sit on the shelf (except for the Q-flashes that require the
> Turbos.)
>
> >That's a fact, Mr. Quack.
> >
> >> More flash power? Faster recycle
> >> times would be achievable, yes. More flash
> >> power, no.
> >
> >More flash power, yes.
>
> duh...more flash power, no. Faster recycling, yes. Absolutely not a
> bit of extra output. None. Nada. Zip. You're just sounding foolish
> here. It's painfully obvious that you have no idea what you're talking
> about.

It's painfully obvious you are trying not to understand what I'm saying.

> >> After a certain number of flashes
> >> any handheld/portable flash unit will need
> >> time to cool down or it will inevitably fry.
> >
> >I've never had that happen and never have seen it happen to anyone else
> >while using a Quantum battery.
>
> You apparently have never used a Quantum Turbo, or even a battery 1
> with the strobe flashing as fast as the battery can keep up.

Only a moron would do that.

How many times have you done it?

How many times have you watched other people do it without telling them
they're gonna fry their flash?

> How about
> asking Quantum? They warn of it. You're so wrong here. Tell you what:
> fire up your favorite strobe and fire it as fast as you can in full
> power mode with a Quantum Turbo battery.

Sorry.

I'm not gonna do that.

> See how long it takes to fry.
> What an idiot. Unbelievable, you are either clueless or the most rank
> amateur. No one who uses Quantum or other outboard packs for a living
> would say such a thing. Again, did you even read the manual that came
> with your Quantum pack? Or your strobe?

Yes, that's exactly why I won't fry my strobes.

Again, as I said, I have never seen that happen nor have I seen that happen
to anyone else.

I'm not gonna disagree with you that there are morons who would try such a
thing.

But I haven't done it nor have I seen anyone else do it with a Quantum
Battery.

Why am I an "idiot" or "clueless" for not admitting I've seen something that
I haven't seen?

Dan

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

Actually, there are two types of external battery packs; low-voltage packs
that primarily provide longer run times (although I agree that the NiMH have
made their use for portable flashes less useful) and high-voltage packs for
faster recycle times (along with longer run times). I will use a Dynalite
Jackrabbit with my Canon 550EX flash units when I want faster recycle times.
The full-power recycle drops from about 6 secs to around 1.5 secs. You can
safely fire about 5 full-power flashes, then you do want to let the flash
unit cool for about a minute or so before shooting again.

I chose the Jackrabbits since they also allow me to use the Dynalite
Uni400Jr (portable studio lighting) on location without AC power.

For a wedding, I may set up the Dynalite Uni400Jrs for the on location
formals, then switch to either a single Uni400Jr mounted on a flash bracket
or a 550EX on the bracket (the Uni400Jr requires a lot more work since it
works strictly in manual). In either case, I oftentimes use a Jackrabbit;
it gives me assurance that I can fire several shots off quickly if I need
to. Weddings often times have a bride action, groom response or vice-versa;
these require good flash recycle time.

Later, for casual reception shots (after the cake cutting, bouquet throw,
etc.), I may dump the Jackrabbit to cut down on weight.

James

<don'> wrote in message news:3ff78b72.160167837@127.0.0.1...
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote:
>
> >> > If one wants to use a low ISO or ISO film for
> >> > better enlargements, one NEEDS more flash power.
> >>
> >> Hmm. The guide number is not changing with the
> >> battery used.
> >
> >Shooting with the flash in manual mode will give the photographer more
flash
> >power and a smaller f-stop.
>
> But it still does not give the flash more output.
>
> >
> >Or the photograher could use a lower ISO, the same f-stop, and get better
> >pictures
>
> Again, the battery does not increase the flash output. Where are you
> getting that from? Please tell us all how you have defied the laws of
> physics?
>
> >And the flash will recycle faster for a MUCH longer time with a Quantum
> >Battery than a set of AA Ni-MH.
>
> Well, it depends on the AA batteries and the Quantum pack, not true as
> a blanket statement. For example even 1,800mAh AA cells blow away the
> Quantum Bantam pack in real life performance, which is only 1,200 mAh.
> Try it. In fact there is no discernable difference in run times with
> Nikon SB26, Sunpak 120 and Vivitar 285 strobes between the Digipower
> 2300mAh batteries I now use and the Quantum 1 batteries I have. I
> carry a spare set, but rarely, I mean *rarely* need them regardless of
> mode. Try it, you'll see. It's simply not worth carrying a bulky
> battery with an attached cable when the NiMH batteries work so well.
> One set in the strobe with one set in my pocket (again, hardly needed)
> beats the Quantum 1 hands down. You're probably comparing 600mAh NiCDs
> from long ago.
>
> I'm not dissing Quantum, I have 5 Battery 1's, 3 Turbos (needed for
> the Q-flashes), 2 Bantams, a Battery 2 and a Quantum Ham radio
> battery. I've used Quantum batteries since they started making them.
> Except for the Turbos they're simply not needed for portable flash
> nowadays. I still use them, but only for convenience with remote
> strobes on stands that need to be turned on and off from the battery,
> or for running multiple stobes from the same pack. Do you honestly
> think a Battery 1 with module and cable is easier to carry than a
> spare set of 4 AA's in the pocket? News flash: it doesn't work any
> better, I have them all and can use whatever I want and use them
> full-time professionally, I'm not one of your "weekend warriors" or
> hobbyists. My strobes get hard use, I wear them out, same with the
> batteries. Since hi-cap NiMH have been on the market most of the
> Quantums sit on the shelf (except for the Q-flashes that require the
> Turbos.)
>
> >That's a fact, Mr. Quack.
> >
> >> More flash power? Faster recycle
> >> times would be achievable, yes. More flash
> >> power, no.
> >
> >More flash power, yes.
>
> duh...more flash power, no. Faster recycling, yes. Absolutely not a
> bit of extra output. None. Nada. Zip. You're just sounding foolish
> here. It's painfully obvious that you have no idea what you're talking
> about.
>
> >> After a certain number of flashes
> >> any handheld/portable flash unit will need
> >> time to cool down or it will inevitably fry.
> >
> >I've never had that happen and never have seen it happen to anyone else
> >while using a Quantum battery.
>
> You apparently have never used a Quantum Turbo, or even a battery 1
> with the strobe flashing as fast as the battery can keep up. How about
> asking Quantum? They warn of it. You're so wrong here. Tell you what:
> fire up your favorite strobe and fire it as fast as you can in full
> power mode with a Quantum Turbo battery. See how long it takes to fry.
> What an idiot. Unbelievable, you are either clueless or the most rank
> amateur. No one who uses Quantum or other outboard packs for a living
> would say such a thing. Again, did you even read the manual that came
> with your Quantum pack? Or your strobe?
>

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

In article <khAJb.6936$>,
Dan Sullivan says...

> > Now here we start a nice educated discussion,
> > backed up with loads of facts...... er, insults
> > on your side.
>
> Oh.
>
> You're gonna use facts, Mr. Quack?

Already did.

> We'll see.

Obviously you already failed to see.

> > > If one wants to use a low ISO or ISO film for
> > > better enlargements, one NEEDS more flash power.
> >
> > Hmm. The guide number is not changing with the
> > battery used.
>
> Shooting with the flash in manual mode will give the
> photographer more flash power and a smaller f-stop.

This is pure rubbish. The max output of a given flash
cannot be changed by means of a special battery or
selecting a certain operating mode. The most common
means of rating flash power output is the guide number,
which does not change with batteries or operating modes.

A Metz 45CTx will always have a guide number of
45 (meters), no matter which battery you use.

Say you choose f=11 to shoot, then the flash will
reach approximately 4 meters (100 ISO), no matter
if you use the telecomputer (thyristor) setting
for f=11 or manual mode at full power. And you can
hook Quantum Turbos as many as you like, the flash
will not grow more powerful.

> Or the photograher could use a lower ISO, the
> same f-stop, and get better pictures

No. Wrong. f=11 at 4 meters is as good as it gets.
Switching to manual mode doesn't extend that reach
in any way. Switching to ISO 50 for example will do
nothing but reducing the flash range down to
approximately 2,8 meters. Manual mode on the flash
doesn't help this.

> And the flash will recycle faster for a MUCH
> longer time with a Quantum Battery than a set
> of AA Ni-MH.

I don't know about the exact capacity of the batteries
in the Quantum Turbos, (Quantum doesn't state that
on their website, and I'm sure they know why) but
Quantum says they are NiMH, and judging from the size
of the Turbo Compact (mounted under the camera, the
one you referred to) there can't be much bigger than
AA cells in it. Probably the Turbo C is even lower in
capacity than you would run with a set of 2000 mAh
NiMH AA cells.

It is obvious that you have not even near a clue
of what you are talking about.

> > More flash power? Faster recycle
> > times would be achievable, yes. More flash
> > power, no.
>
> More flash power, yes.

No. No way. The guide number does not change with
the use of a different battery.

> > > AND for FASTER recycle time
> >
> > Which is the only reason apart from high
> > capacity batteries.
>
> Wrong again, Mr. Quack.

Agreed. Now that we know thanks to another poster
that the capacity of the Quantum Turbo is indeed
even lower than that of a set of 2000 mAh NiMH cells.

> > But bear in mind that many flash guns will
> > fry when used at max output in fast firing
> > sequence.
>
> I've never had that happen

You probably never have used flashes in professional
environments. I have fried several in my life.
Scientific documentation, we fried them one after
the other.

> and never have seen it happen to anyone else
> while using a Quantum battery.
>
> That's a fact, Mr. Quack.

No, that is stupid. Read your manual (if you happen to
have a Quantum at all and are not just babbling about it).
Or read the manual for the Metz 45 series flashguns.
Metz clearly states that in order to prevent thermal
overload you have to wait 30 seconds between each full
power flash in continuous operation or you can fire ten
flashes at max power and then have to wait four minutes
for the unit to cool down.

> > After a certain number of flashes
> > any handheld/portable flash unit will need
> > time to cool down or it will inevitably fry.
>
> I've never had that happen and never have seen it
> happen to anyone else while using a Quantum battery.
>
> That's a fact, Mr. Quack.

Right. It is a fact that you have seen little of
the world of professional photography that you are
babbling about.

> > I am using either AA cells (I think you mean
> > double A?) or D cells in my Metz guns. Recycle
> > times are at 6 seconds maximum if full power
> > flash output was used.
>
> Well, if you need to shoot on full power and need
> a recycle time faster than six seconds... I would
> suggest switching to a Quantum Battery.

No, in that case I would use a different flash, one that
copes with the thermal load.

> > > Quantum is ready to go in less than a second.
> >
> > Which might result in a fried flash in the long run.
>
> I've never had that happen (...)

Yes, we already know you are ill informed.
You don't have to repeat the same sentence
all over again.

> > For long shootings over long hours several sets
> > of AA cells are indeed much more handy to use.
>
> "...several sets... much more handy..."
>
> Really???

Really. Been there, done that.

> The first job I ever used a Quantum Battery on
> I normally would have had a pocket full of
> batteries like you.

Actually I carry two sets, and most of the times
I never need the second set.

> But I never slowed down or stopped to change batteries.

Neither do I.

> When the job was over I realized the Quantum Battery
> was a major advancement for photographers who needed
> to shoot uninterrupted over a long period.

Probably you just had a bad choice of batteries and
chargers before that. You simply switched from one
ill informed state to another.

> You didn't have to shoot on AUTO to get the recycle
> time you needed anymore.

This is stupid again. If I need f=11 at 4 meters distance,
using Auto-11 wouldn't change a microsecond in recycle time
in comparison to full power manual mode.

> You could shoot on manual, get smaller f-stops,
> and better pictures.

Im sorry, but you are a clueless idiot.

> Thousands upon thousands of photographers power their flashes
> with Quantum Batteries.

Funny, I rarely see any. And most of the times those
that I do see are rather clueless.

And yes, I am in a big city, I go to many press events
and I know a large number of fellow professional
photographers.

> Well, if you're gonna call Quantum Batteries "overkill"
> you should (as you wanted me to do) explain all the
> deficiencies of using AA batteries.

Since we now know about the low capacity of the Quantums,
there aren't any.

> Dying at the worst possible time (don't they always).

Since they will outlast the Quantum....

> Having a defective battery which you don't know
> about because you bought the most "reasonable"
> (read cheap) charger you could find.

If that is reasonable to you, I am sorry for you.
A good microprocessor driven charger is 80% of what
you can do with your batteries.

> I'll let you go into detail about all the other
> drawbacks of AA batteries.

Sorry to disappoint you, but in the light of the
Quantum capacity now - there aren't any.

> How many extra batteries do you take to a job
> BTW, Mr. Quack?

Usually one extra set.

> How many times do you stop shooting to change
> batteries, Mr. Quack?

Rarely, if at all. And replacing the battery cage
on a Metz 45 is a matter of two seconds.

> > And you forget that using flash in combination with
> > low speed film will lead to flash only pictures, which
> > will in return often be very dull in atmosphere, and
> > very flat in lighting with a number of extra disadvantages.
>
> Extra disadvantages?
>
> Like minimal grain or minimal noise?

I would always prefer a great image with atmosphere over
a dull image with flat lighting. And I am getting paid
well for that.

> > Yes, you can enlarge that crap to bigger prints.
> > But it will remain crap. Just like your foul language.
>
> Selling bigger prints along with smaller prints is more
> profitable than selling smaller prints alone.

Hm. Selling peanuts, that is. I charge a healthy day rate
and don't need to make too much markup on prints. And
great images will be sold in big prints also. Fine grain
is not all that counts in a picture. If you fail to capture
the atmosphere (which is very likely in your setup), you
probably don't sell at all.

> Or are you not in the business to make money, Mr. Quack?

I am making nice money, thank you.

> Then go buy a Quantum Battery and leave your
> AA rechargable batteries for your flashlights
> and remote controlled cars.

Why should I downgrade?

--
Michael Quack <>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

In article <5GNJb.18746$>,
Dan Sullivan says...

> I'm referring to 200 manual flashes without changing batteries.

So? 180 here with 2000 mAh NiMH cells.
At a dramatically lower price compared to
the Quantum. And looking at the specs
on the website of B&H, they specify it
for only 150 manual flashes.

Clear advantage for the separate NiMH cells,
and at a price advantage of 133 USD, you can
probably do the math.

> Is the flash putting out more light for a
> proper exposure at f 11 at ten feet or
> f 5.6 at ten feet?

That is irrelevant for the max output possible.

> Shooting with the flash on manual as opposed
> to AUTO increases the flash output.

It makes the flas fire full power, nothing but.
If your subject is at the very end of the maximum
range for a given f-stop, the flash will fire
full power just the same, there will be no difference
between manual and auto mode.

> How 'bout the Battery 1 at 200 manual flashes?

Look up the specs at the B&H website, blunt lie.
It states clearly only 150.

> > fire up your favorite strobe and fire it as fast as
> > you can in full power mode with a Quantum Turbo battery.
>
> Sorry.
>
> I'm not gonna do that.

Then what do you need the Quantum for?


> Why am I an "idiot" or "clueless"

Because you obviously don't even know the basics of flash.

--
Michael Quack <>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

x-no-archive:yes

"Dan Sullivan" <> wrote:

>> >Shooting with the flash in manual mode will give the photographer more
>flash
>> >power and a smaller f-stop.
>>
>> But it still does not give the flash more output.
>
>If a photographer needs to shoot in AUTO with AA batteries to get the
>recycle time he needs he could shoot with a Quantum Battery on manual at a
>smaller f stop at the same distance and get the same recycle time.

Huh? How exactly does that increase the power output of the flash? The
flash has the same power with 4AA's as it does with the Quantum. What
does "recycle time" have to do with power output? You haven't even
tried to explain that. Good luck. Besides, my fresh 2300mAh batteries
offer the same recycle time as my Quantum Battery 1 up to 120 pops or
more. Then they BOTH slow down. Time to run back to the camera bag and
dig out the big spare battery pack, or reach in my pocket for 4 new
NiMH calls. No brainer here. You clearly don't do this for a living
and just don't have the experience to make these statements. Don't try
to talk like you do.

>I'm not referring to the first 50 flashes.
>I'm referring to 200 manual flashes without changing batteries.
>Is the flash putting out more light for a proper exposure at f 11 at ten
>feet or f 5.6 at ten feet?

Huh??? How does the battery affect that? Answer: of course it doesn't.
The flash puts out whatever it's set to put out, period. The "correct"
exposure is the correct exposure regardless of the battery, and is
determined by completely different factors.

>> >Or the photograher could use a lower ISO, the same f-stop, and get better
>> >pictures
>>
>> Again, the battery does not increase the flash output. Where are you
>> getting that from? Please tell us all how you have defied the laws of
>> physics?
>
>Shooting with the flash on manual as opposed to AUTO increases the flash
>output.

No. No. No. No. No. NO!!! It does not, everyone on the planet but you
knows that. Why is that such a difficult concept for you? It doesn't.
It merely gives you control of the proportional flash output. The
flash will put out the exact same amount of light at a given power
setting (also, regardless of the power supply.) The auto setting
merely lets the sensor make the decision as to the power level.
Period. If the sensor shuts off the strobe at half-power and
determines that's enough for the exposure it outputs the exact amount
of the light as if you had chosen 1/2 power manual. If it determines
that full power is enough it's the exact same as manually choosing
full power. And if there's not enough power the flash will fire at
full power in auto, the exact same amount as if you had chosen full
power manual.There is no gray area here, you're laughably wrong. Can't
you see that? Everyone else can.

>How 'bout the Battery 1 at 200 manual flashes?

How 'bout it? Wishful thinking and marketing hype. None of my Quantum
Battery 1's has ever reached quite that amount of full-power,
continuous manual flashes with the same recycle time (say over the
course of a 45 minute shoot) with either Nikon SB26, Sunpak 120J,
Vivitar 283/383, or Sunpak 383 Supers. In 100% manual mode in regular
use they go 160-170 before recycle time becomes unbearable or the stop
light comes on. They slow down considerably at way fewer than that.
Which is exactly what Quantum will tell you you should expect with a
battery with fresh cells. Call them up. Ask them. I get way more from
2 sets of tiny 2300mAh NiMH batteries than one huge ungainly Battery 1
with the same recycle time. Since I currently own 5 of them (with
regular cell changes and servicing, BTW) feel I know what I'm talking
about. I really don't think you do. I say again, I own many Quantum
batteries and love them, but I know what they can and cannot do. I
think you're a hobbyist or casual user out of touch with the real
world. You should speak accordingly, instead of jumping on a pedestal.
Careful, remember, a lot of us that read this group do this for a
living and know a poseur right away.

>> >> More flash power? Faster recycle
>> >> times would be achievable, yes. More flash
>> >> power, no.
>> >
>> >More flash power, yes.
>>
>> duh...more flash power, no. Faster recycling, yes. Absolutely not a
>> bit of extra output. None. Nada. Zip. You're just sounding foolish
>> here. It's painfully obvious that you have no idea what you're talking
>> about.
>
>It's painfully obvious you are trying not to understand what I'm saying.

But we all read what you actually SAID in reply to Mr. Quack, that's
where the problem lies. Well then, what exactly ARE you saying?
Power=output, not number of flashes. It seems that you're saying that
a portable strobe that runs on 4 AA batteries and has X output
magically has more than X output, simply by feeding it by the
miraculous Quantum battery. And that a flash that is capable of X
output has more than X output by simply placing it in the mystical
"manual" mode. Go back and read your posts, this is what you are
telling us, and that's not even close to right. We're all laughing at
you here...

If you didn't come off as some sort of manual-mode-Quantum-cheerleader
and didn't make ridiculous claims we wouldn't laugh so much. I'm
calling you on the foolish, blatantly incorrect statements you make.
And you're so adamant about it, which makes you sound even more
foolish. This may be rec.photo.digital, but that's no excuse for your
misinformation, presented as if you really knew what you were talking
about.

No more wasted time from me on wanna-be's, my last post on the
subject. I'll let others point out your errors.

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

x-no-archive:yes

Michael Quack <> wrote:

>I don't know about the exact capacity of the batteries
>in the Quantum Turbos, (Quantum doesn't state that
>on their website, and I'm sure they know why) but
>Quantum says they are NiMH, and judging from the size
>of the Turbo Compact (mounted under the camera, the
>one you referred to) there can't be much bigger than
>AA cells in it. Probably the Turbo C is even lower in
>capacity than you would run with a set of 2000 mAh
>NiMH AA cells.

Michael,

FYI the Quantum Turbo is a different battery then the 6v Quantum
Battery 1 Dan is referring to. The Turbo is an HV pack with a 2.7 mAh
8v lead-acid cell and circuitry boosting it to 300v or so. It does
indeed achieve up to 200 pops of a common portable
Nikon/Canon/Vivitar/Sunpak strobe with 1.5 second recycling, maybe 150
with the Q-flash on a good day with lots of time between flashes and a
fresh cell. It also costs $400 new and is HV only, can't power a
digital camera. The one he's calling the "Quantum Battery" is the
original Battery 1, a 2.5mAh unit consisting of 3-2v lead-acid cells
and 2-6v outputs. This combination can also be used to power the
digital camera and strobe at the same time, but you'll drop your flash
numbers drastically. The Bantam "under the camera battery" is a 6v 1.2
mAh lead-call, virtually worthless in this day in age. I own them all,
as well as the 9v Battery 2 and the 12v Ham Radio battery. The new
Turbo Z, which I don't have, uses NiMH calls, but also has a much
smaller capacity when using HV strobes.

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

In article <foTJb.28645$>,
Dan Sullivan says...

> > So? 180 here with 2000 mAh NiMH cells.
> > At a dramatically lower price compared to
> > the Quantum. And looking at the specs
> > on the website of B&H, they specify it
> > for only 150 manual flashes.
>
> B&H state the full power manual capacity of the Quantum
> Battery 1+ with a Vivitar 283 as 250+.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/37vdq

Aaah, changing horses? What about the Quantum being mounted
on the bottom of the camera as you originally referred to?
Mustn't that be Mfr Catalog # QB1C / B&H Catalog # QUQB1C?
And look at it, 150 pops.

> I can do math and R-E-A-D, too!

Okay. When do you start, then?

> > > Is the flash putting out more light for a
> > > proper exposure at f 11 at ten feet or
> > > f 5.6 at ten feet?
> >
> > That is irrelevant for the max output possible.
>
> The correct answer to that question, as any
> photographer knows, is YES!

And it has nothing to do with the max power output
possible, as any nut knows. Except for you, that is.

> > > Shooting with the flash on manual as opposed
> > > to AUTO increases the flash output.
> >
> > It makes the flash fire full power, nothing but.
>
> As opposed to LESS THAN full power when the flash
> is shot on AUTO other than when the subject being
> at the limit of the range..

That is trivial, yes, but still doesn't lead to your
ridiculous statement of increased max power. The flash
guide number remains unchanged. And if I want a smaller
aperture I can still dial in a higher f-stop in
flash auto mode, I don't need to run it in manual mode
at all.

> If you didn't snip my words you'd see that's what
> I was referring to.

Which means that you don't master the operation of
your flash and obviously have a big misunderstanding
about what flash power ratings are.

> > > How 'bout the Battery 1 at 200 manual flashes?
> >
> > Look up the specs at the B&H website, blunt lie.
> > It states clearly only 150.
>
> From the B&H website re; QB1+,

Now look. You said you can read and you said you can
do the math. Doesn't it occur to you that "battery 1"
and "battery 1+" (*PLUS*) that you are now switching
to are two completely different items? Are you really
that blunt?

> Clearly you're attempting to win this discussion
> by falsifying the facts.

Vice versa, you are even changing battery model
to help your ridiculous position.

You are really a joke.

--
Michael Quack <>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

"Michael Quack" <> wrote in message
news:...

<<<snip>>>

> I don't know about the exact capacity of the batteries
> in the Quantum Turbos, (Quantum doesn't state that
> on their website, and I'm sure they know why)

The Turbo Z capacity is 300 full power manual flashes with a Vivitar 283.

The Turbo Compact capacity is 400 full power manual flashes with a 283.

The Turbo capacity is 450 full power manual flashes with a 283.

The Turbo 2x2 capacity is 900 full power manual flashes with a 283.

All of this information is stated quite clearly on the Quantum website.

http://www.qtm.com

Capacities with handle mount flashes are also listed.

Have fun, Dan Sullivan

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

In article <mZTJb.29961$>,
Dan Sullivan says...

> > I don't know about the exact capacity of the batteries
> > in the Quantum Turbos, (Quantum doesn't state that
> > on their website, and I'm sure they know why)
>
> The Turbo Z capacity is 300 full power manual flashes
(...snip...)

Okay, you are a nut, I give in. Battery capacities are
rated in Ah, not in flashes.

So: Which cells at which capacity are built into
the Quantum devices, nuthead?

--
Michael Quack <>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

"Michael Quack" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In article <foTJb.28645$>,
> Dan Sullivan says...
>
> > > So? 180 here with 2000 mAh NiMH cells.
> > > At a dramatically lower price compared to
> > > the Quantum. And looking at the specs
> > > on the website of B&H, they specify it
> > > for only 150 manual flashes.
> >
> > B&H state the full power manual capacity of the Quantum
> > Battery 1+ with a Vivitar 283 as 250+.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/37vdq
>
> Aaah, changing horses? What about the Quantum being mounted
> on the bottom of the camera as you originally referred to?

In the discussion you mentioned using straps.

And to your statement I posted that some Quantum batteries mount to the
bottom of the camera.

And I listed the Bantam, the Battery 1C, and the Turbo Compact.

> Mustn't that be Mfr Catalog # QB1C / B&H Catalog # QUQB1C?
> And look at it, 150 pops.

No.

As I said I listed all the batteries that mount on the bottom of the camera.

And the Turbo Compact is listed at 400 full power manual flashes with a
Vivitar 283.

Why didn't you quote the specs for the Turbo Compact?

<<<snip>>>

> > > > Shooting with the flash on manual as opposed
> > > > to AUTO increases the flash output.
> > >
> > > It makes the flash fire full power, nothing but.
> >
> > As opposed to LESS THAN full power when the flash
> > is shot on AUTO other than when the subject being
> > at the limit of the range..
>
> That is trivial, yes, but still doesn't lead to your
> ridiculous statement of increased max power.

HERE YOU GO AGAIN!!!

Falsifying the facts!

Please show me where I said a Quantum battery will increase the maximum
power of a flash!

I never said that.

I simply said "Shooting with the flash in manual mode will give the
photographer more flash power and a smaller f-stop."

> The flash
> guide number remains unchanged. And if I want a smaller
> aperture I can still dial in a higher f-stop in
> flash auto mode, I don't need to run it in manual mode
> at all.
>
> > If you didn't snip my words you'd see that's what
> > I was referring to.
>
> Which means that you don't master the operation of
> your flash and obviously have a big misunderstanding
> about what flash power ratings are.

You snipping my words means I didn't master the operation of my flash?

> > > > How 'bout the Battery 1 at 200 manual flashes?
> > >
> > > Look up the specs at the B&H website, blunt lie.
> > > It states clearly only 150.
> >
> > From the B&H website re; QB1+,
>
> Now look. You said you can read and you said you can
> do the math. Doesn't it occur to you that "battery 1"
> and "battery 1+" (*PLUS*) that you are now switching
> to are two completely different items? Are you really
> that blunt?

The original battery was called the Quantum Battery.

Then it was improved and renamed the Quantum Battery 1.

Then years ago that was improved and renamed the Quantum Battery 1+.

All are either clipped to the bely or used with a strap.

The Quantum Battery 1C is a completely different product that mounts under
the camera.

I had written, "How 'bout the Battery 1 at 200 manual flashes?"

(it's actually rated at more than 250)

And you wrote back "look up the specs on the B&H website, blunt lie. It
states clearly only 150."

Obviously I wasn't referring to the Battery 1C.

Dan

 

Re: What the pros use to power their flashes... and their digital cameras.

"Michael Quack" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In article <mZTJb.29961$>,
> Dan Sullivan says...
>
> > > I don't know about the exact capacity of the batteries
> > > in the Quantum Turbos, (Quantum doesn't state that
> > > on their website, and I'm sure they know why)
> >
> > The Turbo Z capacity is 300 full power manual flashes
> (...snip...)
>
> Okay, you are a nut, I give in. Battery capacities are
> rated in Ah, not in flashes.
>
> So: Which cells at which capacity are built into
> the Quantum devices, nuthead?

How many quacks are in a duck?

Dan