Rob,
As far as I understand, the SHV-1 is a slightly modified, rebadged Sunpak
model TR2000, but
without the ability to use Quantum cables and at a significantly higher cost.
Given the greater
flexibility of being able to use various Quantum cables with other flashes as
well, rather go with
Sunpak original, or better yet the many cheaper alternatives including Chucks
favourite, that are
Quantum cable compatible.
Out of stock, but the TR2000 lists at B&H for $249 + cable @ $30 for 3rd party
cable or $50 for
Quantum cable:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/230777-REG/Sunpak_TR2000_TR_2000_Battery_Pack_with.html
Tim Hughes
--- r.burnette@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> I know we have had discussions about lighting on the list, but I don't recall
> anything about the
> FL-50 flash being used for weddings. So, I am wondering if anyone on the list
> has has used it
> for that. Is it up to the task? It is a pro flash, isn't it? (I have it and a
> Vivitar 285HV for
> backup.)
>
> I realize that it will require use of a supplemental power pack. The Olympus
> SHV-1 runs about
> $450. Is it up to the task? The Quantum power pack with cable would run about
> the same from B&H.
> The SP-Systems power pack that Chuck recommends would run about $200 with a
> Quantum cable. That
> seems like a good choice. I do wish that the SP unit had a low power
> indicator like the Quantum,
> but not $250 worth.
>
> My plan is to use my E-500 until the E-510 comes out. I intend to use the ZD
> 50mm f2 and the
> 40-150mm f3.5-4.5 kit lenses. I think the 40-150mm lens is worthy of more
> respect than the pixel
> peepers give it. It's fine for prints up to 11X14. I don't plan to do any
> billboards. My hope is
> that the E-510 resolves some of the high ISO issues. If not, I'll shoot at a
> high ISO and trust
> to a program like Noise Ninja to clean it up. I also hope that the auto-focus
> is improved. I
> like to use auto-focus plus manual.
>
> I am curious as to whether I can chose a given f-stop, such as f5.6 and shoot
> most longer photos
> with that. Would f3.5 give adequate depth-of-field for close-ups and
> successfully blur the
> background? Or would it take f2.8 or f2?
>
> I will appreciate any help and/or suggestions any one of you old wedding pros
> might have to
> offer.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|