| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/02/2013 05:23:24 AM · #1 |
I said most of it in the title, but it's sorta cool that the gold standard in reliability just became $50 cheaper.
Details over at Strobist.
It definitely puts a bit more pressure on the other cheaper options available, since their range certainly does not match those of the PW's.
Message edited by author 2013-03-02 05:23:38. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 07:45:40 AM · #2 |
this is definitely going to put pressure on the others to step their game. at some point, the more committed consumers will tire of the limitations and frustrations that come with the cheaper alternatives and simply pony up for the affordable gold standard.
the only thing that PW doesn't do is allow you to adjust the output power of the light it triggers; for this, you will still be on the hook for a more expensive system (such as the cybersync system for paul c buff gear). |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 09:17:16 AM · #3 |
| I just bought a set of trigmasters plus used them for the light on white challenge worked a treat i can actually used these as a wireless remotely shutter transmitter they have a range of 100m 6 channels and will go for 100 hours all for $49 |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 09:55:50 AM · #4 |
| i just spent 400 bucks on a mini and flex, this seems like a similar system without TTL and costs half. am i wrong? |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 12:57:37 PM · #5 |
Meh.. I can get 200 meters out of my Yongnuo's ... @$15 a unit, I don't see how this could be considered competition.
ETA: I own six of them, and have yet to have even a hiccup with the system.
Message edited by author 2013-03-02 13:05:47. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 01:07:24 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Skip:
this is definitely going to put pressure on the others to step their game. at some point, the more committed consumers will tire of the limitations and frustrations that come with the cheaper alternatives and simply pony up for the affordable gold standard.
the only thing that PW doesn't do is allow you to adjust the output power of the light it triggers; for this, you will still be on the hook for a more expensive system (such as the cybersync system for paul c buff gear). |
I must not have noticed, what am I missing out on? |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 01:15:45 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by mrchhas:
i just spent 400 bucks on a mini and flex, this seems like a similar system without TTL and costs half. am i wrong? |
They are non-TTL dumb triggers with 10 channels. Basically lower priced Plus IIIs without groups. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 02:30:30 PM · #8 |
| I will grab one of these for the times that I'm in a studio since PW's are generally the std but I am very happy with the PCB triggers and they are still quite a bit cheaper for dumb triggers (cyber commander is no req for dumb triggers). I still prefer the form factor of the PCB's with the far smaller dumb trigger. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 03:40:04 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Skip:
this is definitely going to put pressure on the others to step their game. at some point, the more committed consumers will tire of the limitations and frustrations that come with the cheaper alternatives and simply pony up for the affordable gold standard.
the only thing that PW doesn't do is allow you to adjust the output power of the light it triggers; for this, you will still be on the hook for a more expensive system (such as the cybersync system for paul c buff gear). |
I must not have noticed, what am I missing out on? |
strobes that have adjustable power (like alien bees or einsteins) have to be adjusted manually, unless you have something like the cybercommander, which can control up to 16 different lights. nothing like setting up a five-light shoot and not having to go to each light to dial it in.
 |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 03:45:55 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Skip:
this is definitely going to put pressure on the others to step their game. at some point, the more committed consumers will tire of the limitations and frustrations that come with the cheaper alternatives and simply pony up for the affordable gold standard.
the only thing that PW doesn't do is allow you to adjust the output power of the light it triggers; for this, you will still be on the hook for a more expensive system (such as the cybersync system for paul c buff gear). |
I must not have noticed, what am I missing out on? |
strobes that have adjustable power (like alien bees or einsteins) have to be adjusted manually, unless you have something like the cybercommander, which can control up to 16 different lights. nothing like setting up a five-light shoot and not having to go to each light to dial it in.
|
Sure, I understand that Skip, but these new PW's don't have anything of that sort - they're just dumb triggers like my Yongnuos. I'm at a loss as to why they think they're worth just a hair under 7x as much per unit.
You know I drool over that sort of setup - would be SOOO fricken nice to not chase lights. Of course, I just light my stuff by adding one light at a time, and adjusting as needed - tedious, but it does work.
Message edited by author 2013-03-02 15:47:12. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 04:48:57 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Skip:
strobes that have adjustable power (like alien bees or einsteins) have to be adjusted manually, unless you have something like the cybercommander, which can control up to 16 different lights. nothing like setting up a five-light shoot and not having to go to each light to dial it in.
|
Sure, I understand that Skip, but these new PW's don't have anything of that sort - they're just dumb triggers like my Yongnuos. I'm at a loss as to why they think they're worth just a hair under 7x as much per unit. |
ah, i misunderstood your original question. what makes them worth more is their reliability, range, durability, and that they can trigger both strobes and cameras.
on the other hand, that is one of the downsides of the cybersync system: it will only trigger strobes. i actually use a combination of PW and cybersync when i need to trigger both.
granted, you can buy a lot of the dumb triggers and have plenty as backup. it's just a matter of what one's particular situation demands.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2013 05:03:33 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Skip:
strobes that have adjustable power (like alien bees or einsteins) have to be adjusted manually, unless you have something like the cybercommander, which can control up to 16 different lights. nothing like setting up a five-light shoot and not having to go to each light to dial it in.
|
Sure, I understand that Skip, but these new PW's don't have anything of that sort - they're just dumb triggers like my Yongnuos. I'm at a loss as to why they think they're worth just a hair under 7x as much per unit. |
ah, i misunderstood your original question. what makes them worth more is their reliability, range, durability, and that they can trigger both strobes and cameras.
on the other hand, that is one of the downsides of the cybersync system: it will only trigger strobes. i actually use a combination of PW and cybersync when i need to trigger both.
granted, you can buy a lot of the dumb triggers and have plenty as backup. it's just a matter of what one's particular situation demands. |
I see you probably haven't used any Yongnuos. ;)
They are transceivers, so they will trigger flashes or cameras, and are actually 16 channel, instead of the 10 offered by these new PW's..
Range? Both systems claim 100M, but I have personally verified that my Yongnuos will really go 200+M in good conditions.
Durability? I've beaten the snot out of these so far, and they're doing great.
In fact, the only question that's really left for me is reliability - I do think my triggers may have failed twice - but I'm not at all sure it wasn't a flash failing - and in any case, the distance was 1 meter or so, so it's possible that something went wrong because of that. And that's out of several thousand actuations thus far.
The only real complaint that I have which is valid is that the units don't lock to the hotshoe, which has caused me to drop a flash off the body. Aside from that, I just can't figure it out, why do people buy these?
From where I'm standing, it's starting to look like pure marketing.
Message edited by author 2013-03-02 17:04:28. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 05:43:18 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Aside from that, I just can't figure it out, why do people buy these?
From where I'm standing, it's starting to look like pure marketing. |
Because they WERE the standard (until the past few years), pretty much every studio you rent will have these on their lights..... It's handy to have at least one or more logically 1 pair IF your renting studio time. If your not doing that... then yeah the cheaper options make a lot of sense now.
I also suspect they are hurting from all the new players in their traditional market. I think competition is great... clearly it's making them FAR more responsive then their take it or leave it attitude they used to have. Clearly radio popper scared them with the radio eTTL thing so they scrambled to get control of the base to offer that not long after the RP's guys (clearly give the disaster that was for them initially).
Personally I went with the cybers for the main triggers because of the commander (which I don't yet have) and I have AB lights.
EDIT: My first radio triggers were the orig cactus ones... anyone that was unfortunate to use those knows the value of reliability :-) I know they have all improved from those days.
Message edited by author 2013-03-02 17:44:27. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 06:14:12 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Meh.. I can get 200 meters out of my Yongnuo's ... @$15 a unit, I don't see how this could be considered competition.
ETA: I own six of them, and have yet to have even a hiccup with the system. |
I can attest that in a working environment that your triggers and just about every other no name trigger system will fail at one time or another. I've owned many and depending on the situation I put them in each would fail. I went to PW over a year ago and have put them in every situation I could and do imagine and have yet to have a failure or a limitation.
200Meters if fine, but when they won't work within 30 feet because of Radio stations, other photographer remotes, and all sorts of other devices being used at events that scramble their channel and have a very limited range you will wish you had the "Gold standard" system.
I had one case that nearly cost me a contract. I had set up remote cameras and used 2 different systems to fire them. Tested each out before the event to verify no issues. But once the radio, tv, and other people using systems were in place neither system would work at all. Scrambled and confused by the other stuff around them.
Matt |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 06:49:30 PM · #15 |
| Matt's experience reflects the hidden "engineering" differences between eqauipment. If the goal is to produce a product that works almost all the time, often little attentikon needs to be paid to design validation. If the goal is to produce a product that works extermely reliably in a range of circumstances, a *lot* of validation needs to be done. This usually involves additional engineering effort in the design phase, and physical testing in the design validation phase. The engineering costs must be recouped through added product cost. |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 09:26:27 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Matt's experience reflects the hidden "engineering" differences between eqauipment. If the goal is to produce a product that works almost all the time, often little attentikon needs to be paid to design validation. If the goal is to produce a product that works extermely reliably in a range of circumstances, a *lot* of validation needs to be done. This usually involves additional engineering effort in the design phase, and physical testing in the design validation phase. The engineering costs must be recouped through added product cost. |
It's that 80/20 rule. :)
Sure, I agree, if it's a MUST work item, then sure, spend the $$ - for me, shooting in the desert 30 miles from the nearest cell phone tower, I don't anticipate that this should be a major issue. ;)
|
|
|
|
03/02/2013 09:27:10 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Cory:
Meh.. I can get 200 meters out of my Yongnuo's ... @$15 a unit, I don't see how this could be considered competition.
ETA: I own six of them, and have yet to have even a hiccup with the system. |
I can attest that in a working environment that your triggers and just about every other no name trigger system will fail at one time or another. I've owned many and depending on the situation I put them in each would fail. I went to PW over a year ago and have put them in every situation I could and do imagine and have yet to have a failure or a limitation.
200Meters if fine, but when they won't work within 30 feet because of Radio stations, other photographer remotes, and all sorts of other devices being used at events that scramble their channel and have a very limited range you will wish you had the "Gold standard" system.
I had one case that nearly cost me a contract. I had set up remote cameras and used 2 different systems to fire them. Tested each out before the event to verify no issues. But once the radio, tv, and other people using systems were in place neither system would work at all. Scrambled and confused by the other stuff around them.
Matt |
YIKES! :)
Clearly, if you're shooting in those conditions often, that would motivate me to get spendy. |
|
|
|
03/03/2013 07:05:30 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Matt's experience reflects the hidden "engineering" differences between eqauipment. If the goal is to produce a product that works almost all the time, often little attentikon needs to be paid to design validation. If the goal is to produce a product that works extermely reliably in a range of circumstances, a *lot* of validation needs to be done. This usually involves additional engineering effort in the design phase, and physical testing in the design validation phase. The engineering costs must be recouped through added product cost. |
It's that 80/20 rule. :)
Sure, I agree, if it's a MUST work item, then sure, spend the $$ - for me, shooting in the desert 30 miles from the nearest cell phone tower, I don't anticipate that this should be a major issue. ;) |
Another reason is PW has used the same channels over the years. Meaning, they never make their gear worthless. You can use old ones with these new ones, PW, PWII, PWIII, they all work together. Yongnuo's have changed their bands several times last I knew, as have Cactus. PCB's so far as I know have guaranteed backwards compatibility, as well, in future products. |
|
|
|
03/04/2013 07:54:59 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Matt's experience reflects the hidden "engineering" differences between eqauipment. If the goal is to produce a product that works almost all the time, often little attentikon needs to be paid to design validation. If the goal is to produce a product that works extermely reliably in a range of circumstances, a *lot* of validation needs to be done. This usually involves additional engineering effort in the design phase, and physical testing in the design validation phase. The engineering costs must be recouped through added product cost. |
It's that 80/20 rule. :)
Sure, I agree, if it's a MUST work item, then sure, spend the $$ - for me, shooting in the desert 30 miles from the nearest cell phone tower, I don't anticipate that this should be a major issue. ;) |
Another reason is PW has used the same channels over the years. Meaning, they never make their gear worthless. You can use old ones with these new ones, PW, PWII, PWIII, they all work together. Yongnuo's have changed their bands several times last I knew, as have Cactus. PCB's so far as I know have guaranteed backwards compatibility, as well, in future products. |
I have 5 PWII's and 2 PW III's and they all work flawlessly together. My first set of name brand triggers that I bought were the original PCB triggers, the ones they had some issues with and when they released the new ones they allowed you to trade the originals back in for $XX number of dollars. Their originals and the newer ones were not backward compatible the frequencies as I recall are really different. Now from that point on they may be all compatible but I'm not sure.
Matt |
|
|
|
03/04/2013 09:28:14 AM · #20 |
| Matt- I thought I had heard them say they will be as time goes on, but I didn't know much about their past product. I could also be wrong in that, but I seem to remember reading that somewhere. |
|
|
|
03/04/2013 10:44:59 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by MattO:
I had one case that nearly cost me a contract. I had set up remote cameras and used 2 different systems to fire them. Tested each out before the event to verify no issues. But once the radio, tv, and other people using systems were in place neither system would work at all. Scrambled and confused by the other stuff around them.
Matt |
Reminds of a situation where I was called in to look at some test equipment that was returning questionable data. The facility was across the street from the airport with windows covering the side facing the airport. Turns out they were using unshielded cable for their data signals and it was acting as an antenna for the radar pulses coming from the airport. They didn't believe me until I showed them a video of the rotating radar antenna time synced with a graph of the noise. The noise disappeared as soon as the cables were replaced with properly shielded cable, which costs more. The noise hadn't been a problem until the airport upgraded to a more powerful radar. |
|
|
|
03/11/2013 10:03:44 AM · #22 |
Can someone give me an idiot's guide to starting up with one of these PocketWizards ?
I've used one before but with someone else's equipment.
I have a D300 and a single sb600.
And it's my 40th birthday dammit so I
I'm gonna buy myself a gift.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2013 11:01:56 AM · #23 |
| Congrats! Check out strobists lighting course for beginners it'll teach you every thing |
|
|
|
03/11/2013 11:47:43 AM · #24 |
Thanks. I guess essentially the CLS system is better as far as control and the fact that it uses the TTL info â€Â¦ the problem is that I have found the range to be sketchy and the direction of the flash sensor matters too - and the need to trigger the CLS with the built-in flash is not ideal either. So for a few years I've used a cable whenever possible. I suppose a radio trigger would be useful but not the best for every situation.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2013 06:56:07 PM · #25 |
They have their advantages (radio, in general) and their drawbacks. The ways that CLS is better is that you can control power on camera. This is possible with SOME radio remotes, but you either need a dedicated system (Paul C Buff Multimaxes used with Alien Bees) or an expensive radio system (Pocketwizard Flex, Radiopoppers).
Having used CLS quite a bit, I'd say I adapted pretty quickly to generally guessing my starting power and then making fine adjustments with my aperture or light distance instead of futzing with the power every time. You also learn how to adjust the power without looking very easily...
A basic guide is you mount one to your hotshoe, one to your flash. Your camera will trigger it normally. You'll probably have to put the sb600 into remote mode or some such, as well as manual, but I don't recall since I don't own them. Then you can put it wherever you want and fire it off. If you're having issues I can wade into the manual a bit and figure it out for you most likely.
CLS really works way better if you use something like an SB800/900/910 on camera for commander. It's just WAY more powerful and gets rid of a lot of the sketchy parts, but then you're keeping a $500 flash on your hotshoe instead of really using it. You might also consider an SU800, but I can't attest to its performance vs/ onboard. |
|
