Gimme one good reason not to buy PocketWizards

They want me to put a sock over my Speedlite? Okay, so it's a special sock, but...it's still a sock. Kinda defeats the purpose of having all those controls on the 580 if you have to keep peeling it back.


I think the only way this is going to get truly resolved is if (1) PW changes their frequency range, or (2) Canon shields their Speedlites.


I'm wondering if it's possible to mod the 580EX II...take it apart and line the interior with foil or something. It wouldn't have to be complete, just enough to reduce the RF leakage.


Nevertheless, I pulled the trigger this morning and put in my order. Should arrive by Friday. Now I've got to get myself some modifiers and brackets. [:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

They want me to put a sock over my Speedlite? Okay, so it's a special sock, but...it's still a sock. Kinda defeats the purpose of having all those controls on the 580 if you have to keep peeling it back.

---

Yeah, but if you're shooting in ETTL there's likely not much reason to have to access any of those controls. Especially once the PocketWizard ZoneController becomes available. I'll just feel for the on switch, and that should be about all I should need to access.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

I think the only way this is going to get truly resolved is if (1) PW changes their frequency range, or (2) Canon shields their Speedlites.


I'm wondering if it's possible to mod the 580EX II...take it apart and line the interior with foil or something. It wouldn't have to be complete, just enough to reduce the RF leakage.

---

My understand is the RF interference issue has something to do with poor-grade capacitors that were used in earlier models of certain Speedlites(I seem to remember something about this phenomenon from my radio theory course - you'll note that Speedlites in and of themselves don't have any Radio capabilities). Newer Speedlites don't seem to have a problem (or as significant a problem) as older ones - my 580 EX II was manufactured in 2008 and I have yet to be able to use them at a range that exceeds the PocketWizard's capabilities - although I really haven't tried to find their limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Nevertheless, I pulled the trigger this morning and put in my order. Should arrive by Friday. Now I've got to get myself some modifiers and brackets. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

---

Congratulation, I'm sure you won't be disappointed. I love my PWs and am always finding new ways to exploit their capabilities in creative ways and am only getting more excited about what they will be able to do in the future (i.e. beta remours). Sure there are cheaper wireless triggers - but in all honesty PWs can't be compared against most of these other solutions - it's far more than just a wireless trigger. ETTL, Hypersync, and the future ZoneController capabilities make it a worth while platform investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

PW is developing a "Zone Controller" which provides a direct control for three zones of light (most likely within the confines of Canon's zone system, namely that the C group is intended as a background group and should not be illuminating the subject). I for one can't wait for this option.

---

With the PocketWizard ZoneController "C" group will be an actual independent variable ratio third group; unlike how "C" group currently works with the Canon solution - where the ratio cannot be directly varied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WAFKT

With the PocketWizard ZoneController "C" group will be an actual independent variable ratio third group; unlike how "C" group currently works with the Canon solution - where the ratio cannot be directly varied.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

PocketWizard has told us that the ZoneController will support E-TTL. If that's the case, the PW system will be dependent on Canon's metering, so wouldn't the C group be tied to Canon's logic (at least in TTL mode)? I can understand that it'd work as you describe when in manual mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WAFKT

My understand is the RF interference issue has something to do with poor-grade capacitors that were used in earlier models of certain Speedlites(I seem to remember something about this phenomenon from my radio theory course - you'll note that Speedlites in and of themselves don't have any Radio capabilities). Newer Speedlites don't seem to have a problem (or as significant a problem) as older ones - my 580 EX II was manufactured in 2008 and I have yet to be able to use them at a range that exceeds the PocketWizard's capabilities - although I really haven't tried to find their limit.

---

New/old doesn't seem to match up with which flashes have interference problems - 580, 430, 580II have problems; 430II and everything older than 580/430 seem to be fine. It's the newest and oldest that seem to be fine, and a particular middle vintage that isn't so good.

If the PW items are used to remotely release the shutter, is there a half-press mode that allows for AF?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

PocketWizard has told us that the ZoneController will support E-TTL. If that's the case, the PW system will be dependent on Canon's metering, so wouldn't the C group be tied to Canon's logic (at least in TTL mode)? I can understand that it'd work as you describe when in manual mode.

---

I'll admit I'm going off the word of someone from the Canon Photography Forum who has demonstrated in the past a much better knowledge of the subject than I. What you seem to say about the Canon system seems to make sense; I'm certainly open to be proved wrong - although I hope not, because my way sounds much more awesome. The way it had been described to me the ZoneController option would have greater control advantages with a controllable 'C' group than say a camera mounted Speedlite or Speedlite Transmitted used for ratio control - even in ETTL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

New/old doesn't seem to match up with which flashes have interference problems - 580, 430, 580II have problems; 430II and everything older than 580/430 seem to be fine. It's the newest and oldest that seem to be fine, and a particular middle vintage that isn't so good.

---

<div>Sorry, I meant 'older' as in relation to the older models of the specific Speedlites that have been identified as problematic (e.g. older 580EX II seem to be more problematic than newer 580EX II). At leasts that's what my research has turned up, and it appears to hold true with my unit.</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

If the PW items are used to remotely release the shutter, is there a half-press mode that allows for AF?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

The answer is 'it depends on your equipment'.


"In the old days," (figure a year ago), this was possible but expensive. If you used a PW Multimax as transmitter and as receiver, the receivers could be mapped into one of four zones (A-D). If you "enabled" the zone on your transmitting Multimax and you used an "-ACC" cable from the receiver to the camera, you'd wake the camera and half-press the shutter (and enable that zone for triggering - disabled zones didn't trigger AFAIK).


In the newer days, I think it's possible if your transmitter is a Multimax and your Flex connects to the camera through an "-ACC" cable.


FYI, the -ACC cable is about $30 more expensive than the non, usually around $95.


If you're truly interested in this, I'd recommend reading the Multimax product page and manual (PDF available at PW's site), then reading the Flex manual where it pertains to triggering - I think it'll make a lot more sense if you start with a full awareness of the Multimax.

Can someone explain to me what's the whole deal with the RF interference issues with the PocketWizards? I'm not quite sure I understand.


I'm also in the market for purchasing remote triggers and recievers. Currently, I've beenlooking into the new PWs and ELinchrom sets.


I own a 580EXII, 430EX, and will be getting a second 580EXII shortly.


Decisions, decisions... hmmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcmeza_21

Can someone explain to me what's the whole deal with the RF interference issues with the PocketWizards? I'm not quite sure I understand.


I'm also in the market for purchasing remote triggers and recievers. Currently, I've beenlooking into the new PWs and ELinchrom sets.


I own a 580EXII, 430EX, and will be getting a second 580EXII shortly.


Decisions, decisions... hmmm
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

The problem is that certain Canon Speedlites emit radio waves in the same frequency range as that used by the PocketWizard FlexTT5 and MiniTT1 units to communicate. This causes the PW triggering system to become unreliable, have reduced range, or fail under certain situations. The older Plus II model of PWs do not have this issue. I believe the problem partially has to do with the complexity of implementing ETTL and HHS via radio triggering over the selected band.


As far as I am aware, the FlexTT5 and MiniTT1 are the only radio slave devices currently on the market that (1) support Canon ETTL-II, (2) support HHS, (3) have a hotshoe interface, and (4) are firmware upgradeable via USB.


If you don't need any of these features and simply require manual triggering, then there are many other good solutions that are not subject to the RF interference emitted by certain Canon Speedlites.


According to PW, the 580EX II is one of the models that emit RF interference. There are some workarounds; for example, selecting the highest frequency channel may help. An RF-shielding soft fabric sleeve should be available from PocketWizard fairly soon, which is pulled over the flash unit, thereby blocking the interference; however, this is not a very satisfactory solution for an on-camera master flash. The 480EX II does not appear to cause problems.


Future Canon Speedlites should address this issue. PocketWizard should have tested their devices more rigorously, and/or selected a more appropriate RF band (but this may not have been feasible given FCC restrictions, power/range requirements, and the need for backward compatibility).