Gimme one good reason not to buy PocketWizards

So I'm tired of waiting for RadioPoppers to come back in stock and I'm tired of agonizing over the multitude of brands of radio systems (I've looked at CyberSync, Cactus, RP, PW, Elinchrom...the list goes on). I am on the verge of pulling the trigger and getting a pair of PW FlexTT5s. The Mini is only $20 cheaper than a Flex so there's not much point, might as well just get two Flexes. And that would be maybe $200 more than if I went with RP JrX or CyberSyncs. Sure, I want to save money as much as anyone else, but I think my time and frustration is worth more than the $200 I'd be saving.


But here's what got me thinking. I saw the PWs and they're the only ones who have a direct hot shoe connection. They look like they're designed from the ground up to work with Canon's Speedlites. I don't want to have to fumble with little bits and pieces of gear that get damaged or lost, not to mention that these bits are not exactly cheap either! $17 for a little adapter or $5 for a plug or cable here and there adds up quickly. And I'm not confident enough to mess around with buying and using weird little gadgets to make things play nice with each other.


I'm aware of the RF interference issues with the PWs, but for now all I have is one 430EXII and I don't plan on getting the 580 any time soon.


So someone give me a good reason not to go ahead and buy the PWs. Here's my breakdown:


PW Pros:

• Integrated hotshoe / no need for adapters
• ETTL + HSS
• firmware upgrade capability

PW Cons:

• Expensive
• RF interference (may be resolved in the future)

The PWs are excellent, and they're getting better. The beta firmware brings second-curtain flash capability and some neat compensation knobs for bounced and/or high-power flash, which tells me they're trying to improve and fix whatever they can.


As far as the interference problem, I think there are two fixes that haven't gotten much publicity. One is to change channels. There's a tech bulletin on their website suggesting certain channels because they're in a frequency range (albeit tight) that seems to encounter less interference. I've started with the highest of frequencies (see the manual for the chart), and I've been having excellent results with it. Second is to use them as basic triggers, i.e. have your flash in manual mode with desired power selected. This is personal theory, and nothing that I've seen elsewhere, but they've said that the interference problem is only on the receivers with RF-noisy flashes, not on transmitters that have a local flash. Therefore, I suspect the interference problem is partially with the pre-flash (and/or recharging after the pre-flash) which manual flash would avoid. PW wouldn't want to say this, as it'd defeat the primary reason for creating these units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

So someone give me a good reason not to go ahead and buy the PWs.

---

It sounds to me like you've done the research, know the pros and cons, and are ready to pull the trigger on these things. Go for it. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

I'm aware of the RF interference issues with the PWs, but for now all I have is one 430EXII and I don't plan on getting the 580 any time soon.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I've worked with the 430EXII's with the PW's, and they give me no problems. The 430's put out less RF noise, and for that reason alone, you're making the right choice. Like you, I like the direct to hot shoe attachment, and no fiddling around modifying my flash units.

I can't. I have a few of the Radiopopper JrX (2 receivers and one transmitter) and they will wind up being sold soon to help purchase the PocketWizard gear. I'm just not happy with them overall.


Get the PocketWizards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graydon

I can't. I have a few of the Radiopopper JrX (2 receivers and one transmitter) and they will wind up being sold soon to help purchase the PocketWizard gear. I'm just not happy with them overall.


Get the PocketWizards.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

What didn't you like about the JrXs?

So, I have a question. It sounds like the PWs (or any wireless trigger) negate one of the advantages of a 580EX II over a 430EX II, which is the ability to trigger other flashes as a master. Is that correct? If so, and there aren't really other legitimate reasons to get a 580EX II, I think my first flash will be a 430EX II instead. I've been wanting a flash, but was kind of waiting until I could afford the big one.


Also, if the 430EX II being less RF noisy is less problematic when using the PW stuff, that is actually an advantage, and by being able to buy the cheaper flashes, it negates some of the extra cost of the PW system.


Can a PW also remotely fire the camera?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

So, I have a question.

---

You seem to have more than one question. [;)]

Quote:

---

It sounds like the PWs (or any wireless trigger) negate one of the advantages of a 580EX II over a 430EX II, which is the ability to trigger other flashes as a master. Is that correct?

---

Sort of but not really. The Speedlite master/slave system uses optical signals. The problem with this is that if you have bright ambient light or the strobe light path is obstructed, then you may not get the desired triggering to take place. With any radio frequency (RF) solution such as the PW, you solve this problem. Obstructions are very common--e.g., shooting with an umbrella, or using a hair light. However, my understanding is that with the 580 attached to the PW, you now control the lighting ratios of any additional slave units in manual mode. If you only have 430s on PWs, then there is no way to adjust ratios except by adjusting each flash unit (not sure if there's a remote controller available from PW). So there are still advantages to the 580EX II.

Quote:

---

If so, and there aren't really other legitimate reasons to get a 580EX II, I think my first flash will be a 430EX II instead. I've been wanting a flash, but was kind of waiting until I could afford the big one.

---

If you want to use PWs, definitely start with a 430EX II. That's my impression. The 580EX II has other advantages, though: (1) It has a larger guide number, so is significantly brighter; (2) it has a larger AF assist beam and therefore works for 1-series bodies across all AF points; (3) it has more flexible positioning of the flash head; (4) it has the ability to connect to a portable external battery.

Quote:

---

Also, if the 430EX II being less RF noisy is less problematic when using the PW stuff, that is actually an advantage, and by being able to buy the cheaper flashes, it negates some of the extra cost of the PW system.


Can a PW also remotely fire the camera?
<div style="clear: both;"]

---

</div>


Yes. You would need to put the FlexTT5 on the camera as a receiver, and hold a transmitter (a MiniTT1 or second FlexTT5) to trigger. If you need to trigger a strobe in this setup, then a third PW is needed. Again, that's my understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

So, I have a question. It sounds like the PWs (or any wireless trigger) negate one of the advantages of a 580EX II over a 430EX II, which is the ability to trigger other flashes as a master. Is that correct? If so, and there aren't really other legitimate reasons to get a 580EX II, I think my first flash will be a 430EX II instead. I've been wanting a flash, but was kind of waiting until I could afford the big one.

---

Some of the trigger systems depend on a camera-mounted flash, but not the old PWs and not the new PW system (in basic mode). To have the camera perform E-TTL operation with multiple flash groups, you'll (temporarily) need an on-camera (aka on PW on camera) 580 to manipulate multiple zones. Unfortunately the in-camera zone controls on newer cameras is not available to the PW system. 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.


As someone else already pointed out, there are some legitimate reasons to get the 580. If you need the power, you need the power and there's no substitute (well, two PWs and two 430s...). Last winter, I took some pictures of our indoor Christmas village, and used Rosco 58 gel to create a moonlit look. With a 580 on a stand 4' above the village, I didn't have enough power, and had to fly a second flash to get the shot. I also happen to be addicted to the option for the external battery pack. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

PW Cons:

• RF interference (may be resolved in the future)

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Consider this "resolved" - PocketWizard is now giving away a free AC5 soft shield for every TT5 purchased. See http://blog.snapfactory.com/?p=925 for the story and http://www.pocketwizard.com/news_events/promotions/ac5 for the signup form (coming today).

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

There are some workarounds; for example, selecting the highest frequency channel may help.

---

Just to be clear, selecting a different frequency/channel may help, BUT there are different strategies/opinions on what to do. I was just about to experiment with highest frequency (since the 433MHz CE units don't have problems) when I stumbled across a PocketWizard web page that suggested channels in the 345-347MHz range. I've stuck with my random experiment and had great results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

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.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

PocketWizard has been pretty clear that the interference problem is at the receiver, and isn't influenced by the presence of an on-camera flash. Anything's possible, but I suspect they're right: the transmitter's signal should overpower the flash's interference, but it's weaker at the receiver.

Thanks, peety. BTW, I saw an inexpensive car keyfob looking remote system on eBay but haven't seen it lately. I remember it specifically stating that it offered this feature. Am I the oddball for thinking this should be standard on all RF solutions? This PW stuff is not cheap!


EDIT: I found this system on eBay, but it isn't what I had seen before. It does specifically mention Focus as one of the available release modes. I am guessing that it means a half-press, essentially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

Thanks, peety. BTW, I saw an inexpensive car keyfob looking remote system on eBay but haven't seen it lately. I remember it specifically stating that it offered this feature. Am I the oddball for thinking this should be standard on all RF solutions? This PW stuff is not cheap!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Doing the shutter half-press probably involves a lot of state management logic that's beyond the mission of the cheaper RF solutions. To save battery life on the transmitter side, it's probably best to send a command that signals the receiver to half-press. However, you probably want to resend that code/bit with each subsequent command, so the receiver knows to continue the half-press. There could also be "rules" on the receiver end that say the half-press has to stop during/after the full-press (or not stop), etc., all of which is research and deployment that the cheaper folks prefer to skip. :(