What makes the 580EX II worth $500???

Hi Kathy,

I don't disagree -- "horses for courses" I guess.

The pocketwizards have come a long way since their initial release - to the point where they can be used to control power-settings on studio lights - manage modeling lights - are highly programmable - and even correct for some of the shortcomings with Canon's own 2nd curtain timing. Just the AC3 zone controller alone is indispensable.

I take your point re the interchangability with Nikon, but having said that, I think that if one were to change to Nikon, the $$$ involved in changing PW models would be pretty much the least of ones things to worry about. And if Canon were to change the protocol significantly, I think it would cause more of an issue with existing flashes (can't see that happening though).

The "Interference" thing was something that didn't help them at all, but all in all, it hasn't been as big a deal for me personally, and I suspect a lot of others are in a similar situation; first up, the EU versions weren't as affected as the FCC versions - triggering is usually reliable out to around 100 feet (which covers most general lighting situations anyway) - plus - there are further gains to be made simply by seperating the flash from the TT5 using an off camera shoe cord (one may argue that one shouldn't have to do that, but at the end of the day, there are mechanical advantages to doing that anyway -- if one wants to have a heavy-duty rig that's robust).

A couple of things that REALLY didn't help though were (a) a bug in the initial programming software that meant settings weren't always replicated between units correctly (which made an already steep learning curve several orders of magnitude more frustrating), and (b) documentation that was - frankly - abysmal (you should go work for them!). A while back I developed quite a good working relationship with them - gave them some good constructive feedback - and I'm happy to say that they've taken a lot of it on board (from others as well as me, I should mention) ... the loader works reliably now - the documentation is now referenced from within the configuration utility - they've fixed the bug I reported - things like 2nd curtain sync now work - manual test firing now works - and they've continued to add additional functionality (a lot of which can't be done easily either at all, or at least without a dedicated master controller).

All in all I'd say they probably released the product a little too early (possibly radiopopper had a hand in that?), but it's now matured into something that's reasonably reliable. To be honest, they're still a bit like a formula 1 car; very powerful, but also somewhat "twitchy" in that flash settings have to be understood to get the most out of them (eg knowing how the flashs have to be setup for them to work properly), and they do still cause misfires occasionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

The pocketwizards have come a long way since their initial release - to the point where they can be used to control power-settings on studio lights - manage modeling lights - are highly programmable - and even correct for some of the shortcomings with Canon's own 2nd curtain timing. Just the AC3 zone controller alone is indispensable.

---

Yup. If you need to intermix with studio lighting, the PWs are definitely the way to go. I think the only thing that the RPs can do in this regard is use the quench pin thing with the JrX units on studio lights to simulate high-speed sync. OTOH, a JrX is seriously cheaper than an AC3 and some Plus IIs. :) As you say, horses for courses.

Quote:

---

I take your point re the interchangability with Nikon, but having said that, I think that if one were to change to Nikon, the $$$ involved in changing PW models would be pretty much the least of ones things to worry about.

---

Grin. I think after selling and rebuying cameras, lenses, and flashes, you might like not having to do that with your triggers as well. :) But actually, I was thinking more in terms of someone like Neil van Niekerk who shoots both systems, or Strobist meetups where you pool gear. At the last lighting workshop I was at, I was able to lend a light to someone else because it was a Nikon SB-26, and had an optical slave mode built-in and didn't need an additional PW Plus II :). He'd have been limited to two lights, otherwise, but this way he had two sidelights and a key for a substantially different look.

Quote:

---

And if Canon were to change the protocol significantly, I think it would cause more of an issue with existing flashes (can't see that happening though).

---

Think of old Sigma lens AF incompatibilities. Canon has a vested interest in making sure Canon equipment is backwards compatible with new features. Not so much PocketWizard gear. Timing is crucial and critical with flash syncing. If they slide something a few milliseconds one way or the other, and suddenly a specific PW-added function could mistime. Reverse engineering is a bitch, because you don't have access to the full design or logic behind same. All you can do is look at the outputs from little black boxes, and guess. PW might have guessed wrong. But as I said, this is my engineer's head. When you've worked in the high-tech electronics industry for a few decades, certain things you just intuit, like computer programming elegance, and it makes no sense for someone who isn't inside it.

Quote:

---

... All in all I'd say they probably released the product a little too early (possibly radiopopper had a hand in that?), but it's now matured into something that's reasonably reliable. To be honest, they're still a bit like a formula 1 car; very powerful, but also somewhat "twitchy" in that flash settings have to be understood to get the most out of them (eg knowing how the flashs have to be setup for them to work properly), and they do still cause misfires occasionally.

---

Yup, this is the impression I got as well: if you were an early adopter, you were an inadvertent alpha/beta tester. :) But that it's finally to the state where it's reliable and you aren't firmware updating as frequently. And hey, they're PocketWizards.

Kathy,
I have 3 yn560's and only ONE Tx/Rx. The other flashes are used as optical slaves and that has worked flawlessly in my limited experience doing that.
At this point I am leaning toward the 430ex II as my only ETTL flash. At $210 less than the 580, I just don't see the point. At this point I think the 580 makes more sense as a second ETTL flash if I ever decide I want one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

Grin. I think after selling and rebuying cameras, lenses, and flashes, you might like not having to do that with your triggers as well. :)

---

More of an issue for those switching from Nikon to Canon (they're the vast majority) :D:eek:

Quote:

---

But actually, I was thinking more in terms of someone like Neil van Niekerk who shoots both systems, or Strobist meetups where you pool gear. At the last lighting workshop I was at, I was able to lend a light to someone else because it was a Nikon SB-26, and had an optical slave mode built-in and didn't need an additional PW Plus II :). He'd have been limited to two lights, otherwise, but this way he had two sidelights and a key for a substantially different look.

---

Ony 2 - eeeeeek. I struggle with "only" 5 in the studio sometimes (and they're big ones!).

Quote:

---

Think of old Sigma lens AF incompatibilities. Canon has a vested interest in making sure Canon equipment is backwards compatible with new features. Not so much PocketWizard gear. Timing is crucial and critical with flash syncing. If they slide something a few milliseconds one way or the other, and suddenly a specific PW-added function could mistime. Reverse engineering is a bitch, because you don't have access to the full design or logic behind same. All you can do is look at the outputs from little black boxes, and guess. PW might have guessed wrong. But as I said, this is my engineer's head. When you've worked in the high-tech electronics industry for a few decades, certain things you just intuit, like computer programming elegance, and it makes no sense for someone who isn't inside it.

---

I hear what you're saying - and yes, Canon probably went out of their way to stick it to Stigma - oops, I mean Sigma - but then again, Sigma were/are direct competition, whereas PocketWizard aren't. My gut feeling is that it's unlikely to be a problem (the term "commercial suicide" comes to mind if they did).

Quote:

---

Yup, this is the impression I got as well: if you were an early adopter, you were an inadvertent alpha/beta tester. :) But that it's finally to the state where it's reliable and you aren't firmware updating as frequently. And hey, they're PocketWizards.

---

To be honest though, I've never seen them as a "hack" in terms of the approach they took - the reality is that it's a minefield to try and navigate, and all in all, I think they've done it pretty well, bar the "rushed release". As an example, have a look at this PDF to get an idea of the thoroughness they investigated this "problem".

http://lpadesign.com/580EXII.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Hi Brian,

Frankly, it would have been nice if Canon had done that right from the start :(

---

The term "wireless sync" conjures up the thought of operation by radio waves. The term "optical sync" conjures up triggering by either visible or invisible light such as infrared.

However, the term "optical sync" certainly would not be as good of a sales point as the term "wireless sync". That sounds magical!

To come right down to it, I have been somewhat disappointed with several facets of the Canon flash system...

First is triggering a flash mounted on a flash bracket like the Stroboframe Camera Flip Bracket outdoors. The 7D triggering does pretty well indoors but is hit and miss outdoors depending on the angle and intensity of the sun and the proximity of your subject. I have been triggering my flash using a Canon Off Camera Cord for years and it is virtually foolproof. However it is one more link to fail and it also, by placing the flash high over the cold shoe mount, places extra strain in the flash shoe. I had hoped to completely replace the off camera cord for both indoor and outdoor shooting with the "WIRELESS TRIGGER" of the 7D. But that was just not to be...

Next is the overall design of the little 270EX which is a relatively nice exceptionally lightweight flash that can be carried in a shirt pocket anywhere. It does have cartain limitations...

Although it is offered as being compatible with all EOS cameras, it is really only totally compatible with 40D and later cameras because you cannot use high speed sync with the 270EX unless you can activate it on the camera body. O.K.; most of the time, I use my 7D or 40D and my 30D is only used as a backup. So that's no big deal...

The little flash can only tilt but cannot rotate. This makes bouncing in the portrait position unfeasible unless you use a bracket and that would defeat the purpose of this little lightweight flash. O.K.; I can get around this by using a Joe Demb Photojournalist Flip-It which provides semi-decent lighting in the portrait position...

I wanted to use the 270EX as fill flash outdoors but, sadly it can't be used for this purpose with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is you want to keep the lens hood on. The 270EX is so low that the hood causes a half moon shadow at the bottom of the frame. O.K.; I can get around this by using the Photojournalist Flip-It but, that wastes a LOT of light...

The 270EX would be absolutely great as a slave because you could keep it in your pocket until it is needed. However, Canon neglected to provide this little unit with slave capability. They remedied this by issuing a 270EX ii which does have slave capability. However, that doesn't help the owners of the original 270EX.

SPEAKING ABOUT GETTING THINGS RIGHT FROM THE START?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedneeder

At this point I am leaning toward the 430ex II as my only ETTL flash. At $210 less than the 580, I just don't see the point.

---

To me, the point is twofold: 360-degree swivel, and one stop more power output. When you go on-camera and eTTL, your go-to technique is likely to be bouncing. The 580EX is better in this regard because if you want to, you can bounce behind your right shoulder, or flip to portrait counter-clock-wise and still choose your bounce direction. The added power output means more range and the ability to shoot in larger spaces. The eTTL master/slave thing is a non-issue, because until you have two units it doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

To be honest though, I've never seen them as a "hack" in terms of the approach they took - the reality is that it's a minefield to try and navigate, and all in all, I think they've done it pretty well, bar the "rushed release".

---

Whereas I was using "hack" in the computer-programmer aesthetic judgement of elegance/kludge. I probably should've used kludge instead. A kludge doesn't mean it's a patch job or badly done. It just means that it's not a simple elegant way of achieving the job. A kludge would program for every instance of input. Elegance is coming up with a single simple algorithm that takes care of every instance. But what the TTL PWs are doing, to me, just ... feels busier and has more parts to break. Like I said, from the outside it makes no sense, and this is more of an aesthetic judgement than a logical one.

Richard, engineering advances are always incremental. Complaining about the 270EX not having wireless slave capability while the 270EX II does is kinda like complaining that the 220EX doesn't tilt and needs 4 AAs instead of 2 like the 270EX does. And if Canon really didn't get it right, then why did you buy it? They obviously did something right if you plunked down the cash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

It just means that it's not a simple elegant way of achieving the job.

---

Maybe, but the simplicity of the RadioPopper also means limitations, and it also means the extra expense of needing an on-camera master controller (plus the far less elogant way that master controller is programmed when dealing with multiple zone / ratios etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

...and it also means the extra expense of needing an on-camera master controller...

---

Well, now that Canon's building masters into the pop-ups, if you have a camera with one, then you can get way with a single EX to use the RPs. They always worked with the Nikon pop-up commanders in the D90 and above bodies. I forgot about this, since neither of my camera bodies has a master in the pop-up. Hell, my 5Dii doesn't even have a pop-up. I'm really curious to see if they add one to the 5Diii.

Like I said, there are advantages to elegance.

Quote:

---

... (plus the far less elogant way that master controller is programmed when dealing with multiple zone /
ratios etc)

---

This I haven't seen. But I figure being able to dial in all your remote commanding from the camera back is relatively simple and easy. How does PW improve on this?
---- [goes off and googles]

Oh. That's faster and probably more ergonomic. But fugly. Dedicated hardware switches/dials ain't elegant; and it's not added function over the Canon system--it's just a different hardware interface. And what happens if Canon adds fourth group control? You'll have to buy an AC4 controller....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

Well, now that Canon's building masters into the pop-ups, if you have a camera with one, then you can get way with a single EX to use the RPs.

---

I don't think they'll be adding one to the 1Ds series anytiome soon :D

Quote:

---

This I haven't seen. But I figure being able to dial in all your remote commanding from the camera back is relatively simple and easy. How does PW improve on this?

Oh. That's faster and probably more ergonomic. But fugly. Dedicated hardware switches/dials ain't elegant; and it's not added function over the Canon system--it's just a different hardware interface.

---

With the AC3 you have 3 zones of light - and each one can be switched to manual or ETTL with a seperate switch. Without the AC3 you'd have to physically adjust any manual flashes if you were using a mix of manual / ETTL. Even if it CAN be done from a master controller (assuming a 550EX / 580EX series), it's still very "syntactical" in that you have to press the right buttons in the right order and "spin the wheel" - with the AC3 you simply rotate a small thumbwheel (one for each zone) -- if that zone is set to manual then it varies the power of all flashes on that zone - if it's set to ETTL then it applies up to +/- 3 stops of EC to that zone.

Quote:

---

And what happens if Canon adds fourth group control? You'll have to buy an AC4 controller....

---

Um ... we'd then have to replace all our flashes because they couldn't handle it. Speaking of which though, there are rumours of a 580EX II replacement with built in radio wireless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

With the AC3 you have 3 zones of light - and each one can be switched to manual or ETTL with a seperate switch. Without the AC3 you'd have to physically adjust any manual flashes if you were using a mix of manual / ETTL.

---

You're right. I forgot about the mix. What I find intriguing about this is that chances are good the Canon equipment could do this same mix as well, it's probably just a matter of UI. The trick is figuring out how to control the non-eTTL unit power levels.

Quote:

---

Even if it CAN be done from a master controller (assuming a 550EX / 580EX series), it's still very "syntactical" in that you have to press the right buttons in the right order and "spin the wheel" - with the AC3 you simply rotate a small thumbwheel (one for each zone) -- if that zone is set to manual then it varies the power of all flashes on that zone - if it's set to ETTL then it applies up to +/- 3 stops of EC to that zone.

---

Right. Like I said. It's faster. But elegance of design, to me, is something quite different from "simple/easy to use." I'm looking at it from the design/engineering point of view, not the user point of view. Simple to engineer and maintain is vastly different from simple to use. If it's BOTH, then it's elegant, if you see what I mean.

Quote:

---

Um ... we'd then have to replace all our flashes because they couldn't handle it.

---

No, you'd just have flashes that couldn't be used on the fourth group and few new flashes that could. :)

Quote:

---

Speaking of which though, there are rumours of a 580EX II replacement with built in radio wireless.

---

There are ALWAYS rumors of an EX replacement with radio. It always reads as wishful thinking to me (just like people predicting the 5DIII will have the 1DMkIV autofocus system in it). But I keep hoping that Canon will realize 2.4GHz is open to them worldwide for this (ala Yongnuo/Cactus/Cybersync triggers. PWs are still down in the 350-450 MHz band--they can't leave it, though, without losing backwards compatibility with older units).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

PWs are still down in the 350-450 MHz band--they can't leave it, though, without losing backwards compatibility with older units).

---

They're not using 2.4Ghz, but the present models maintain backward compatability by transmitting 2 triggers (a "basic" trigger and a "Control TL" trigger).

Quote:

---

You're right. I forgot about the mix. What I find intriguing about this is that chances are good the Canon equipment could do this same mix as well, it's probably just a matter of UI. The trick is figuring out how to control the non-eTTL unit power levels.

---

If it's truely non-ETTL (as opposed to manual power selection via ETTL as the TT1 / TT5 does it) then it's on average a 10-step solution ...

... take 10 steps to where-ever the flash is, and adjust it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

If it's truely non-ETTL (as opposed to manual power selection via ETTL as the TT1 / TT5 does it) then it's on average a 10-step solution ...

... take 10 steps to where-ever the flash is, and adjust it :)

---

Grin.

But the PocketWizard JrXs are using the quench pin to do remote commanding on the power level of manual speedlights with the RPCube (which a lot of folks are hacking up for themselves); and can also remotely command the power level on studio strobes. I'd forgotten about the JrX/PX mix being able to remotely command the power levels on studio strobes and TTL speedlights in combination. They also hacked up some kind of way to do HSS with studio strobes, but I think it was basically extending the strobe burst duration. Probably also how PW Hypersync works. No freaking idea of how the Cyber Commander is controlling power levels on the Buff lights.

But it's clear nobody likes walking those 10 steps. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

Grin.

But the PocketWizard JrXs are using the quench pin to do remote commanding on the power level of manual speedlights with the RPCube (which a lot of folks are hacking up for themselves); and can also remotely command the power level on studio strobes. I'd forgotten about the JrX/PX mix being able to remotely command the power levels on studio strobes and TTL speedlights in combination. They also hacked up some kind of way to do HSS with studio strobes, but I think it was basically extending the strobe burst duration. Probably also how PW Hypersync works. No freaking idea of how the Cyber Commander is controlling power levels on the Buff lights.

But it's clear nobody likes walking those 10 steps. :)

---

Yeeeeaaaahhhh ...

I read of people doing these kinds of things. To my mind it's a bit like those who come up with adaptors to fit Nikkor lenses on a Canon body; losing metering / aperture control / AF / and everything else in the process - just because it's "sharper in the corners" (when viewed at 400%). My usual thought (whilst shaking my head) is simply "why?".

End of the day, I'm a pretty simply kinda guy - far easier for me to just use the right tool for the job in the first place, albeit perhaps a sophisticated tool that I often push to the limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

... To my mind it's a bit like those who come up with adaptors to fit Nikkor lenses on a Canon body; losing metering / aperture control / AF / and everything else in the process - just because it's "sharper in the corners" (when viewed at 400%). My usual thought (whilst shaking my head) is simply "why?".

---

Because you can do it with Zeiss and Leica glass for relatively little money. And my Oly 50/1.2 cost me $290, and it's the same size as my 50/1.8 II. :) Also, just 'cause you can. Zeiss glass is fun.

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...d5657bb9_z.jpg
Canon 50D. C/Y Zeiss Planar T* 100/2

Quote:

---

End of the day, I'm a pretty simply kinda guy - far easier for me to just use the right tool for the job in the forst place, albeit perhaps a sophisticated tool that I often push to the limits.

---

And see, for me, photography isn't a job; it's a hobby. It freaks me out that anybody would be using adapted manual glass for pro work, but they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

And see, for me, photography isn't a job; it's a hobby. It freaks me out that anybody would be using adapted manual glass for pro work, but they do.

---

I met up with a fellow pro photographer recently - really nice chap - and uses Ziess glass on his Nikon, and of course, no AF. No problem for his static work, but we had serious focus issues of shots of kids running along the beach. To be honest, I just don't get it (why people do things like that) (for pro work).

Lol@Richard!
Sorry for your troubles man!

Studio lights aside...
The st-e2 and the pocket wizards with ac3 do the same thing? Only the st-e2 does via IR? Full ETTL-2 off camera with zone control from a 60d?

Kinda/sorta. The ST-E2 actually does less than the 60D's pop-up can as a wireless master. It's got the same wireless master capabilities as the 550EX. Only two groups (A:B), and only by ratios, not by manual settings. The 580EX added the C group, and remote manual settings control and the 60D's pop-up can do the same. If you have a 60D, there's not much reason to get an ST-E2.

Except that the ST-E2 also lets you autofocus in the dark (focus assist) without blinding someone (IR vs. visible), and can master with wireless high-speed sync.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedneeder

While on vacation my one and only TTL flash has started behaving erratically!
So I was browsing some new flashes and I don't understand why the 580EX II is $160 more than the 430EX II. Can someone clue me in? Are there other flashes I should be considering for TTL metering? (I have some YN-560's for manual flash capability)

---

Because it will work when you need it. The 580EX can act as a wireless master for slave units, the 430EX can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedneeder

Studio lights aside...
The st-e2 and the pocket wizards with ac3 do the same thing? Only the st-e2 does via IR? Full ETTL-2 off camera with zone control from a 60d?

---

The PW TT1 + AC3 allows you to have a LOT more control. I have a PW TT1 + AC3 that I use ALL the time - I also have a ST-E2 that I NEVER use. The ST-E2 -v- PW is like comparing a bicycle to a sports car.