HV Battery for Honeywell Strobonar 882

Discussion in 'Lighting Equipment' started by ed_kubacki, Nov 15, 2005.

  1. Dooes anyone know of a High Voltage Battery pack replacement for the
    510V battery for the Strobonar 882. I've had this one since the late
    70's and the 510V batteries used to be readily availble, but I can't
    seem to find them anymore (I think it was an Everready 497 if my
    memory is correct).

    I was hoping someone has info on the current external battery packs
    like the Sunpak TR2000 and Quantum units that can be used with the
    882. Their websites offer little or no info on what units they work with.


  2. Ed, I want to ask you are you sure it doesn't use Sub C Ni-cad?s. I have a Honeywell 770 Strobonar Auto and it uses 4 sub C battery?s. I re-celled mine for about 18.00 and it is an awesome flash unit. Very powerfull and recycles in about 5 seconds. The reason I ask is the trigger voltage of the caps is 500 volts on my unit and the few sites I found with info on the 882 puts it in the same class at the 770 auto. I may be wrong and am not trying to offend you. If it does take Sub-C battery?s I can pull my CC card receipt and see where I got mine. I upgraded it from 1200MAH to 2600Mah. And it works great.

  3. Ed, I downloaded the manual and I'll be darned if yours doesn't take 510 volt high voltage, Dry battey everyready 497 type battery. That stinks because it looks identical to a 770 auto only thing I see better is faster recycle times. Good luck fnding those batteries.
  4. I found about 10 places that stock them but they are expensive and are not rechargable glad I have a 770. cheapest I found is 75.00USD.

    Go to google type eveready 497.
  5. The battery Cross Refrences to a NEDA 741
  6. Donald,

    I have 2 700 Strobonars that have the sub-C cells. Good work horses, but Sloooow reclycle times.

    I was hoping to use the 882 for my son's wrestling meets. I have a Canon 420 EX for my EOS bodies, but it only takes loose AA cells and is a pain to load batteries in (the battery door feels like it will snap off). So quick changing the batteries is out.

    I also have 2 Vivtar 283s (you get the impression I like my classic stuff, no I don't have any flash powder :)) that are 20 years+ old. they have high ( >250V) voltage on the hot shoe and this isn't supposed to be good for the new electronic cameras.

    Oldly enough, the 882 has a hot shoe (yep, it ahs a hot shoe mounted auto expose head) with a voltage of ~2.5 V ! Who would have thunk! I would have guessed the 882 would have a voltage in the stratosphere.

    It works great on the AC adapter, but I've been out of luck finding an inexpensive battery for it. The 497s were and I assume still are zinc-acid 'dry-cells', I was hoping for a rechageable battery pack that would be useable on both the 882 and 283s. Hopefully with just a cable change.

    Thanks for all the replies.

  7. I recently dug out my old Strobonar in order to do an upcoming family wedding. I used it many years ago for a couple dozen weddings and loved both the size, feel, and results. The batteeries are the problem, however, and I will probably bite the bullet and get one on-line. It is expensive, but the results are worth it, compared to the hot-shoe units currently available.

    My absolute favorite was/is the Norman flashhead with portable battery pack. The flash color was absolutely right on. Great equipment, but you needed a sherpa to carry the battery pack. For that reason, I haven't looked to see if there are still battery replacements available.

    Dick Clark
  8. I have 2 Strobonar 65D Futurmatics, and 1 Strobonar 800 Pressmaster, and all using 497 battery, that I would (at least) like to test-fire to see if they work. The in-head battery trays don't have electrical contact for batteries, so I assume they are 497 powered only? I do not have the AC adapter (anyone know where I can get it?) I see B&H has the 497 battery for $84.95. Is that my only choice? aside from stringing together 300 1.5 V button cells to get the 450 VDC to test fire?
  9. I have the Pressmaster 800 with the camera bracket, AC adapter, and sync cord, if anyone is interested it it. It works
    fine on AC. I'm clueless about any batteries. I noticed the handle warms up when I'm using it, which would suggest
    there are batteries in the handle? The head of the unit has a compartment for batteries, but as someone wrote
    above, there are no contacts. Too bad.

    I'm selling a bunch of camera gear that I have collected over the years and just came across the Pressmaster in a
    box tonight. Forgot I had it and came to Photonet to find some specs on it. It's a neat unit. Anyone know the guide
    number? I still have a Vivitar 292 that needs to have its battery pack rebuilt. A real monster with a GN of 65 @ ISO
    25. I hope Homeland Security does not make me give it up. :)
  10. I have the 882. I recently purchased a Quantum Turbo battery and then got the quantum turbo cord CH. It is not supposed to work for the 882, but I figured what the hell.....well in short it does flash the 882. I have two 882's and will try it once I get the Quantum QT-48 dual cord which allows two flashes to be fired by the Turbo.
  11. This thread is 16 years old. I wonder if the fellow with the Strobonar 700 is still out there. I have a 770, which take the same charger. The charger is 14.2 volts DC. So how can he have been happy with a new sub-c battery pack, which is only 4.8 V? Thank you.
  12. I used a 700 for years, and most always used the sub-C battery pack as the power source; sometimes using the A/C adapter and sub-c battery tray together for a faster recycling time.

    When the A/C adapter is used alone, the full recycling time is measured at @ 15+ seconds, and the pilot light never goes off. The recycle time with A/C and batteries was an honest 5-8 seconds, and batteries alone sometimes ran around 12 seconds when they were fresh. I don't believe the A/C adapter alone ever brought the unit up to full power when used alone. The pilot light never went off indicating a less-than-full charge. I tested against a Wein WP500 meter, and it never put out the advertised rating of a guide number of 80 using K25 film, almost always 1-1.5 stops lower. I never minded, since some underexposure on print film is never a bad idea, although using batteries alone or in combination, the flash did put out a fair amount of light.

    There's something in the electronics which doesn't match the output listed on the adapter.
  13. That's because all manufacturers' Guide Numbers are a pack of lies.
    I own or have owned speedlights(lites) and hammerhead flashes from nearly every well-known brand - plus some of the cheaper ones as well. Absolutely none of them measures up to its rated GN when metered, nor in practical exposures.

    Subtract one stop from the rated GN and you're in the right ballpark for a correct exposure.
  14. It appears to me that the published GN is intentionally high and not due to manufacturing variation because the actual output is always lower than the rated output.
  15. The rated output was always meant as a starting point. Neither Honeywell nor any other EF manufacturer could know the environment in which the flash was used. When I bought a Model 700 in 1970, the camera shop guy also used one for his wedding photo business. He provided invaluable advice for actual GN based on room size, reflectance, etc. And a K25 GN of 80, in a large church was definitely overly optimistic. :eek::D:eek::D
  16. If it's an unknown then you would have errors in both direction. In this case as Joe has found out it's always less than specs. Also Joe didn't test them in a large church. I tested them 2 and in a rather small room at distance of 10ft. Like Joe I always found them overated.
  17. I was fortunate, that the fellow at the camera shop had a lot of experience, and had shot a couple of weddings at the same venue. I used his advice, made notes of his settings, and got great results the first time out. From that time onward, I always "reconned" the venues, and shot test film if time permitted.

    As an aside, I was in the Navy, and making extra money on the side doing weddings. When I started out, I used a Minolta Autocord, and a Kako Super Elite flash. I finally scraped up enough to get the Strobonar 700.
  18. FWIW. The GN testing methodology described in the freely available Indian Standard (and probably lifted directly from the 'secret' ISO standard) specifies that measurement should take place in a "non-reflective room". This wording is open to wide interpretation. It could mean anything from a matt black painted large hangar, to a small matt white painted wardrobe. Just as long as it didn't have a mirrored surface.

    I strongly suspect that all flash manufacturers interpret the wording as meaning a matt white painted corridor no more than 1 metre wide and barely 2 metres high! But they certainly don't use any environment you'd normally encounter in the real world.

    Whatever. As I said before; if you subtract one stop (divide the GN by 1.5) from the maker's stated flash output, then you won't be far off the mark.
  19. My experience echos RJ.
    In a LARGE room or outside, open 1 stop from what the flash calculator says.
    Or divide the film ASA by 2. So rather than 100, I would set the calculator dial to 50.

    Our joke was similar to RJ.
    The mfg GN was determined in a small WHITE room.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2021
  20. Guide numbers are just that: guides. There is a wide variation in environments in which flash units can be and are used, that does affect the effectiveness of those units in terms of amount of light on your subject.
    So they set up a standard test, to determine guide numbers by which you can compare different units. These numbers do not, cannot, predict how much light will end up on your subject. But that thing about all manufacturers erring on the same side, giving comparably 'too optimistic' numbers shows where these numbers are good for.
    So stop complaining. You're just complaining about your unrealistic expectation that GN รท distance = f-number that will give your desired exposure. That will be true, but only in those circumstances you have so astutely identified. What if they used another setting to determine GNs? You'd still be complaining, because the numbers would still not be 'correct' for, say, the test setting they used before. Unless you understand that these numbers are for (rough) comparison only, you'll never stop complaining. Futile.

Share This Page