Why Use Pocketwizards?

[Maleko]

As clearly put by George, the ST-E2 isn't very "reliable". I have used one and sometimes the flash won't go off because as stated, it isn't in direct line with the flash and remote. My mate even went back to the good old Flash Shoe Cord instead of the ST-E2 it was annoying him that much!


I would definately go for an alternative, such as the Pocketwizard.

[Sean Setters]

You don't necessarily have to go with Pocketwizards to get good reliability and range. Two more affordable options include the Cybersyncs and RadioPopper JrX units. They are "dumb" triggers like the original Pocketwizards, but are significantly cheaper. The RadioPopper JrX units were just released a week ago, and the only drawback I've heard so far is the relatively short battery life of the transmitter. I use the Cybersyncs, and they are simply fantastic. Both of these systems provide about 300ft of range, while the original Pocketwizards (non-TTL) have a range of about 1600ft (very few people actually use that kind of range, though). It is possible to use Cybersyncs in relay mode for increased range. Cybersyncs can also be used to trigger the shutter wirelessly if you have a motor (shutter release) cord with a miniphone jack. In fact, I used this feature yesterday while taking this self-portrait (the strobe in the background and the camera are both being triggered by Cybersyncs):









Another TTL-capable alternative are the RadioPopper PX units. They're about as expensive (if not more) than the new TTL-capable Pocketwizard units, but they're generally regarded as a much more reliable product. They developed TTL-to-radio communication; only after their pioneering R&D did Pocketwizard get off their lazy bums to try to develop the same thing. ;-)


If you want to put our toe into the water of radio-based non-TTL flash firing, you might want to investigate the cheapest alternatives--those being ebay triggers. They include Cactus, Yongnuo, etc. The ebay triggers can be extremely unreliable (although it is possible to receive a decent set), but it's a relatively cheap way to find out if you want to spend more money on a higher quality product.

[George Slusher]

Sean:


Thanks for the info. The original RadioPoppers (P1) were a neat idea, but they and the newer PX both work entirely differently than the new PocketWizard TTL devices. The original RadioPoppers picked up electromagnetic pulses when the on-camera flash fired, then transmitted those to the receiver on the remote flash. The receiver then pumped the appropriate optical signal via a fiber optic cable to the sensor on the remote flash. The PX seems to use a better implementation. For example, the receiver now attaches to the front of the slave flash, with an IR emitter smack up against the flash's sensor. That's a better system, to be sure. The original P1s were a mess to install, apparently--you had to get the fiber optic in just the right place. (Peter Gregg devised a clever mounting system for the P1 that used a wide rubber band to hold the fiber optic in place.)


The big advantage to the original RadioPopper P1 (and probably the PX) over the PW devices for Canon users seemed to be better reliable range, primarily due to EMI from a 580-series remote flash affecting the PW Flex TT5 transceiver in receive mode. (It wouldn't affect the Mini TT1 transmitter or a Flex TT5 on the camera.) PW has been working on a shield for the flash. An interim solution is to move the flash away from the transceiver, using an off-camera cord, and/or orient the receiver antenna and the flash in particular ways. An even better solution, I've read, is to use Canon 430EX slaves. They do the same thing as the 580 series (slightly less power and less swivel freedom), but cost a lot less. ($270 vs $420 at B&H)


An even bigger advantage for the RadioPopper is that their devices are compatible with both Canon and Nikon TTL systems as they come. The PW units, OTOH, are uniquely for Canon or Nikon systems. (The Canon system is out; the Nikon system is expected--sometime.)


There are several disadvantages to the RadioPoppers, compared to the new PocketWizards:

• You MUST use a flash (or commander like the ST-E2) on the camera. The PocketWizard Mini TT1 can be used without a flash, since it interfaces directly with the CAMERA, not the flash. The PW Mini TT1 and Flex TT5 (the transceiver) both have Canon flash shoes on top. That increases the cost of the system, as, to have two off-camera flashes on their own (no flash from the camera location), you have to use three flashes or two flashes and a commander. The PW units would require just the two remote flashes.
  
• The RadioPopper PX requires that you affix essentially permanent tape and/or velcro to your flash units. Their mounting for the transmitter looks like it might get in the way of using flash modifiers like the Lumiquest devices. They will also reduce the resale value of your flash. (I've watched eBay for over a year. The price of Canon 580EX and EX II flashes with attached velcro is usually less than those without velcro; most have many fewer bids, as well. A lot of people apparently don't want gooey stuff on a $300+ flash.) It's also not clear if the mounting for the receiver will interfere with the normal operation of the sensor when the receiver is removed.
  
• In order to interchange a flash from master to slave, you'd have to put both mounting systems on. The PW devices don't require that, as they have no mounting systems.
• The new PocketWizards can also act as a simple non-TTL trigger by themselves (the Flex TT5 has an external sync connector like a Plus II); the RadioPopper PX units cannot, as they don't interface electronically with the flash or camera. IOW, they can't be used with off-camera Vivitar 285HV flashes, a favorite of "strobist" fans. The PX transmitter can trigger the JrX receivers that can interface with studio strobes and non-TTL flashes, like the 285HV. Similarly, the PW Mini TT1 & Flex TT5 can trigger PW Plus & Multimax transceivers & receivers.
• The PW Flex TT5 transceiver, like the "simple" PW units, can trigger a camera remotely, then relay the signal to the remote/off-camera flashes when the shutter fires. The Flex TT5 can even trigger a continuous "motor drive" burst by the camera.
  
• The PW units can be upgraded (firmware) and "programmed" via a USB port. I didn't see that capability listed in the RadioPopper manual, but it's probably not necessary, in any case, as the RadioPopper system is much simpler.

The RadioPopper web page says:


"<span class="productText"]
Not only is the RadioPopper PX system the leader in wireless ETTL by
radio, but the newest addition to the line, the JrX, makes RadioPopper
the first solution to be able to mix ETTL compatible flashes, full
power studio strobes and low cost handheld flashes in a single shot."


The PW TTL units have been able to do that since they came out--they can control the PW Plus and Multimax devices. The PW Multimax transceivers can do some other things, from their site.

• Selective Quad-Zone Triggering
• Time-Lapse Imaging
  
• 
  Multi-Pop Flash
  
• 
  Rear-Curtain Sync
• SpeedCycler (sequential triggering of sets of flashes, used in product photography, for example)
  

I'm not sure just how useful they would be. It's likely that the
RadioPopper PX units can do some unique things, too. Both support
high-speed sync.


In summary, both systems have advantages and disadvantages. Their concepts of operation are different, however, so I wouldn't agree with your last sentence. RadioPopper's R&amp;D would have been pretty much irrelevant to that for the PW. It would actually be simpler, as they wouldn't have to reverse-engineer the Canon or Nikon TTL system.


An interesting note: the RadioPoppers use essentially the same concept (with different implementation--e.g., the pickup on the master flash) as IR "relays" for A/V system remotes. In 1990 or so, I had a wired system, called the "Rabbit," that would pick up the IR output from a remote, send the pulses over a thin wire to a transmitter that would pump out the IR signal. It didn't have to point at the unit (TV, stereo, cable box, VCR, etc), as the signal would bounce around the room. I had the cable box and VCR downstairs and a "remote" TV upstairs. I ran the Rabbit wire and the coax for the RF signal out a window, up the outside wall and in through a window. A few years later came similar devices that use radio linking, like the Radio Poppers.

[Sean Setters]

In summary, both systems have advantages and disadvantages. Their concepts of operation are different, however, so I wouldn't agree with your last sentence. RadioPopper's R&amp;D would have been pretty much irrelevant to that for the PW. It would actually be simpler, as they wouldn't have to reverse-engineer the Canon or Nikon TTL system.

What I meant to say was that Pocketwizards had no incentive to develop TTL-capable radio-based flash triggering until Radiopoppers came along.Pocketwizards simplyweren't developing the technology (maybe thinking it was too complicated or not cost-effective). Once theRadioPopper P1 units were announced and then released, the folks at Pocketwizard felt it was in their best interest to develop a similar technology (although implemented differently). The evidence is that they rushed through R&amp;D and releasedthe new units without sufficiently testing them. While there are certain measures that can be taken to minimize the flaws associated with the new units (which involve more cost or inconvenience), Pocketwizards are still playing catch-up (and probably will for some time) to RadioPoppers in that particular market segment. Yes, the Pocketwizards (on paper) are easier to use and provide more features--but in use, they're just not as reliable as the PX system. I'll take reliability and range over a couple of nifty features any day. Think of it this way--the RadioPopper P1s were their first attempt at the technology. The PX system is their second (having addressed the shortcomingsof their first attempt). The Pocketwizards are on their first attempt at this technology. Do you want to beta-test their technology or go for something that's been proven and refined?

[Rodger]

Two more affordable options include theCybersyncsandRadioPopper JrXunits.

Dangit I always forget that "affordable" in the photography world doesn't equal affordable in the highschool student world haha. Until I find a new job, the Cactus V2s system will have to suffice. ohhh well. At least they get the flash off camera.

[George Slusher]

I almost forgot: if all you want is a simple trigger, without TTL, you don't have to use something as expensive as the PocketWizard or RadioPopper devices. There are Chinese-made RF triggering systems that work well over a limited range. I have a set (well, I actually have two transmitters and three receivers) that I got on eBay from seller "jiakgong," whom I've had very good results with. They are smaller, lighter, and a LOT cheaper than the PW units. Their reliable range is much less than with PW--maybe 30-40 feet, in good conditions, but that can be enough for many uses. The transmitter uses a garage door remote battery, which is not cheap, but not as expensive as the battery for the ST-E2.


You may see/read/hear about the "Cactus" system, one brand from China that is actually sold by at least one retailer in the US, Midwest Photo Exchange, who have a lot of neat gear. The Cactus is a bit more expensive than the units I bought ($30 vs $25), but they should work as well and you don't have to wait for 2 weeks or more to get them from China.

[George Slusher]

Quite a challenge you've set yourself, Crosby! Shooting indoor sports is a real PITA. I don't go to basketball games, but I do shoot indoor horse shows, which can have even worse lighting, if that's possible. Our 4-H Youth Fair Horse Show is in an arena that has not only dim lighting, but very difficult-to-handle color balance, as the overhead lights seem to vary in color output (possibly based on their age?). I've had to go to f/2.8 zooms (Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS &amp; 70-200mm f/2.8L IS) plus a bunch of primes--Canon 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 (the one I use the most), and 100mm f/2, plus a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that I got after the last horse show and haven't tried out in that venue. Later, I'll post a shot that demosntrates the difficulty. I end up using ISO 1600 or even 3200 on my 30D much of the time in that arena, with the usual noisy results, but that's better than blurred images due to subject movement.


If I were in your situation, I'd strongly consider putting money into one or more faster (and better quality) lenses, rather than more flash gear. The 17-55mm f/2.8 or 24-70mm f/2.8 might work well. (The EXIF data on your photos show FLs of 28mm and 44mm.) For what you'd spend on E-TTL triggers, especially the RadioPoppers ($750 + another flash or the ST-E2, total of $970-$1170), you could buy either lens used or the 17-55mm new. Which would be better would be up to you. They would both be almost 1 stop faster and have better image quality.


You also might consider a prime lens or two (or three!). Look through your
photos and see what the common focal lengths you use and figure out if
a prime would work. I would guess, if you're close-in, that the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Canon 28mm f/1.8 or Sigma 28mm f/1.8 would be good. They would all be at least two stops faster than your f/3.5 lens--the f/1.4 lenses are even two stops faster than the f/2.8 zooms. Even the vernerable Canon 35m f/2 might be OK. The shallow depth of field can be useful, too, to put the background out of focus. Other advantages of the primes are that they are smaller, lighter, use smaller (i.e., less expensive) filters, and easier to use. Get a fairly wide prime and crop when you need to.


To put it into perspective, the shutter speed for your ambient light shot was 1/100th at f/3.5. At f/2.8, that would be about 1/150. At f/2, it would be 1/300, at f/1.8 it would be 1/378, at f/1.4, it would be 1/625! Maybe you don't need flash, especially with the difficulty in matching the color of the ambient light.


New prices:


Canon 28mm f/1.8 - $500


Sigma 28mm f/1.8 - $379 - includes hood


Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - $439 (I paid $330 used) - includes hood


Canon 35mm f/2 - $300 (I paid $212 for used with a hood and Hoya SHMC UV filter)


Canon 35mm f/1.4L - $1,299 (Probably not worth it)


Canon 50mm f/1.4 - $399 (I paid $335 used, but it included the hood--$20-27 at B&amp;H, for a total new of $419-426)


(The Canon 50mm f/1.8 at $110 might be usable, but it's not as fast-focusing nor as good as the f/1.4)


Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - $1,030


Canon 24-70 f/2.9L - $1,349


Thus, you could get the 30mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 for less than the RadioPoppers + ST-E2.

[crosbyharbison]

I forgot to mention that I'm using the 50 mm f/1.4 now and love it and its focal length. I do find that anything shallower than f/2.5 produces undesirable results. The canon 28 sounds like a great lens for some wider shots and I'll look into it.


To get my Canon EX 430 II to work with the Plus II system do I need this?


If I want to use a third flash can I get the mini TT1 on my camera and mount a flash on top of it and still operate with my Plus II's?

[George Slusher]

[removed]