Wireless flash trigger options?

photobug

I'm new with studio strobes and discovered the hard way that built-in slave sensors don't work reliably outdoors (unless it's getting dark out). For my last shoot, I had use PC sync cords strung from camera to two strobes. For an event next spring, I expect to shoot 50 portraits in an evening, probably with 3 flashes, and don't want to fret about people tripping over a bunch of PC sync cords :uhoh... so I'm looking into wireless.

I've run across two options:

1. The Cadillac option, according to everyone, is the Pocket Wizard route. It offers high dependabilty, lotsa features, and great range -- but at the price of $150-$200 per flash.
2. The reasonable-cost route would be something like this unit (sample image below) which runs about $25 per flash. The claimed range is about 30' (which I take with a grain of salt) and the receivers have to be kept at least 5' apart (which shouldn't be an issue).

Has anyone used wireless triggers like option#2 and might be able to comment on how well they do or don't work?

ziggy53

I was told to stay away from the AC powered wireless units, because they seem to get interference from the AC line itself. Too little isolation I'll bet.

I bought 3 of these units below and ..., 1 transmitter works at 1/200th sync or slower, 1 transmitter works at 1/125th or slower, and one is unreliable. All of the receivers work fine and are interchangeable.

So I marked the transmitters as to best and such, and I use the worst of the units just to manually trigger the flashes during setup for balance.

So far, I'm pretty happy but they are not very long distance operation. I get about 20 feet indoors max. 16 channel operation is nice. The units work with the monolights and portable flashes.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Digital-Radio-Slave-Flash-Trigger-16-Channel-Wireless_W0QQitemZ140018894339QQihZ004QQcategoryZ30086QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

ziggy53

photobug

I was told to stay away from the AC powered wireless units, because they seem to get interference from the AC line itself.

Yep, could be. I was thinking "fewer batteries to maintain", but given he low battery drain on the units you mention, that may not be an isssue.

I bought 3 of these units and ... I use the worst of the units just to manually trigger the flashes during setup for balance.

I was thinking of using a secondary unit for manual trigger, also. (Way more cost-effective than a $50 Pocket Wizard transmitter module for my flash meter)

So far, I'm pretty happy but they are not very long distance operation. I get about 20 feet indoors max.

Thanks -- very helpful info.

16 channel operation is nice. The units work with the monolights and portable flashes.

What would I need more than one channel for, unless I was avoiding interfering with other photographers in the same room (within 20', yet)?

I could see using a second channel to trigger my shutter, but that would require an adaptor cord to go from the radio receiver to a 3-prong Canon plug. A quick web search didn't turn one up, although here is one that has a similar idea. Hmm.

ziggy53

I was just thinkin' (there's a first time for everything ) if you want to stay inexpensive and reliable, the FlashPoint monolights come with a nice long pc-1/4" cord and you could use a simple Wein Peanut for optical slave. I've used them in sunlight and with that long cord, they should be aim-able. As long as you don't have competition from other flashes, it should work well.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=63118&is=REG&addedTroughType=search
http://www.adorama.com/WNPN1.html?searchinfo=wein%20peanut&item_no=2

ziggy53

ziggy53

photobug wrote:

... What would I need more than one channel for, unless I was avoiding interfering with other photographers in the same room (within 20', yet)? ...

I haven't needed them yet, but more discreet channels probably means less interference overall.

Another use for multiple channels is to set 2 lights up to different channels, and then select the slaved flashes by switching the transmitter. It is extra work, but if you need that kind of control, you've got it.

ziggy53

photobug

I haven't needed them yet, but more discreet channels probably means less interference overall.
Another use for multiple channels is to set 2 lights up to different channels, and then select the slaved flashes by switching the transmitter. It is extra work, but if you need that kind of control, you've got it.

So it sounds like having more than one channel wouldn't be a bad idea.

I saw some 4-channel ones on eBay, which claim to have 100' range (apply large grain of salt to that), for about $30 per set. I might go for those.

Thanks for the advice -- it has certainly influenced my choice.

= Dave

pathfinder

ziggy53 wrote:

I was just thinkin' (there's a first time for everything ) if you want to stay inexpensive and reliable, the FlashPoint monolights come with a nice long pc-1/4" cord and you could use a simple Wein Peanut for optical slave. I've used them in sunlight and with that long cord, they should be aim-able. As long as you don't have competition from other flashes, it should work well.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=63118&is=REG&addedTroughType=search
http://www.adorama.com/WNPN1.html?searchinfo=wein%20peanut&item_no=2

ziggy53

The Flashpoint strobes have built in optical triggers and they work fine as long as you are the only shooter triggering them. They will fire from the strobes from P&S cameras just fine - DAMHIK:): Even with a fairly dim triggering flash they work fine indoors. Outdoors, it takes a stronger triggering flash to fire them.

photobug

The Flashpoint strobes have built in optical triggers and they work fine as long as you are the only shooter triggering them. They will fire from the strobes from P&S cameras just fine - DAMHIK:): Even with a fairly dim triggering flash they work fine indoors. Outdoors, it takes a stronger triggering flash to fire them.

I had a pair of Flashpoint DigiPopper 300s (which I'm now exchanging/upgrading to the 620s - long story). Yes, the built in optical strobe trigger works ... but doesn't work very well outdoors until nearly dusk ( ~7pm in early August), when the sun is low and it isn't so bright out any more.

I imagine the built-in optical trigger would work fine indoors ... but I'd like a triggering solution that will work both indoors and out, even in bright sunlight (not that I'd want to shoot anything critical outdoors at mid-day)

pathfinder

I will put in a vote for the PWs, despite their cost.

Yes, they seem expensive, but they do work, reliably, consistently, indoors and out, with others strobes going off, etc. It is nice to know you can count of them.

They can be triggered with the Sekonic 358 light meter + transmitter so you set up the strobes, pop them with the light meter, and enter the aperture and shutter speed readings into your camera in manual mode and go to work. That's efficiency:):

photobug

Pocket Wizards & Sekonic L-358 meter

I will put in a vote for the PWs, despite their cost.
Yes, they seem expensive, but they do work, reliably, consistently, indoors and out, with others strobes going off, etc. It is nice to know you can count of them.

Thanks for the recommendation, Pathfinder. I will probably eventually go the Pocket Wizard route, when I need to use wireless triggering more often (and for paid work). I just can't justify the $150+ cost for each one unless they're tools for generating revenue...

They can be triggered with the Sekonic 358 light meter + transmitter so you set up the strobes, pop them with the light meter, and enter the aperture and shutter speed readings into your camera in manual mode and go to work.

Yes, indeed. I recently got a Sekonic L-358 with that in mind -- that down the road I could add a PW transmitter module to it! ...Just not quite "yet"

Shane422

I bought a set off of ebay similar to what Ziggy gave a link too. The exception was that these had a female hot shoe connection as well as a PC connection. One Trasmitter/reciever set was $20 and a second reciever was $12. Several members over on the Strobist flickr group had recommended this seller. I figured the advantage with these is that I can fire speedlights without a PC connection (i.e. Nikon SB600) as well as Monolights. I haven't used them a lot yet, but they do work and they are cheap enough that they are worth a try.

Blurmore

One option not discussed yet is Quantum, I use Quantum Radio Slave 4I's and the range is rediculous with the antennas down, with them up I think I could trigger them in another state. Both studios I worked for used Q's and Channel D, so I bought into them so I could trigger their flashes and visa/versa. The PW's are awsome and allow some feature sets that the Q's lack, such as TTL ability with some systems, and the sekonic trigger thing. The quantums can be used as motordrive/shutter trigger with the right adapter. They are not a 'TRANSCIEVER' there are designated senders and recievers. One nice thing is 4I's are backwards compatible to the Slave II's (which are super cheap and very reliable). Quantum also makes 'Freewire' unit which is similar to a PW in that each unit is a transciever, and I believe with the correct adapters they allow some TTL control. What I truly can't wait for are the next generation of Paul C Buff radio triggers, which act as slaves AND remote power control for AB and WL strobes (assistant? we don't need no stinkin assistant!). The old system uses the 900mhz band which according to PCB wasn't used for much at the time of the design, and PCB didn't envision it to be used by every cordless phone and garage door opener in the universe. Once they are released I may dump the Quantum's and just use the PCB Radio Remote II.

limbik

I know its wishful thinking, but it sure would be nice if the these fancy Canon flashes could sync trigger with internal RF instead of this line of sight junk.

photobug

limbik wrote:

I know its wishful thinking, but it sure would be nice if the these fancy Canon flashes could sync trigger with internal RF instead of this line of sight junk.

And the chorus chimes in a big "A-MEN!"...

--the following is just photobug's reasoned guesses ... probably part of the reason, but also probably not the whole picture --

Canon probably doesn't because then it'd be subject to FCC regulations and have to go through a bunch of expensive RF compliance testing. And another set of compliance testing for European RF standards. (And perhaps another for parts of Asia.) The standards assure that RF devices stay within their assigned frequency range (easy for a poorly designed transmitter to spill over outside of that range) and stay within their allowed power output -- all so they don't interfere with the operation of other devices. If everyone in the sandbox plays by the rules then electromagnetic bliss prevails.

The FCC apparently doesn't regulate line-of-sight electromagnetic radiation up in the infrared range (frequencies just below visible light) ... so Canon can use IR "wireless" to trip slave flashes and avoid dealing with multiple regulatory agencies, which means faster time-to-market and a nice chunk of R&D savings.

pathfinder

I wish both Canon and Nikon would include a simple external PC connection on all their flashes. Not having a pC connection is really annoying.

One of the advantages of IR is that it is cheap and widely availabe ( think TV remote controls )

Canon uses the IR to communicate data between the master and the slave also - not just a triggering burst, but distance and FEC I beleive.

PWs work great at triggering, but they are strictly a manual strobe device - no ETTL when using PWs. The Canon ST-E2 does allow ETTL usage via IR bursts, but with less distance and reliability than the radio transceivers for flash triggering like the PWs.

photobug

I wish both Canon and Nikon would include a simple external PC connection on all their flashes. Not having a pC connection is really annoying.

Agreed ... I suppose it saves 10 cents and besides, it encourages you to buy more Canon EOS system flashes . ...Although for about $15 you can get hot shoe adaptor, into which the flash mounts and into which you plug a PC sync cord for triggering.

(I just bought some gear from eBay seller "PhotoGearOK" and he/she offers those hot shoe adapters, but only seems to sell them as add-ons to eBay orders; haven't seen them listed on their own there)

One of the advantages of IR is that it is cheap and widely availabe ( think TV remote controls )

Yeah, but ... strobes don't have to interface to home audio/video equipment, and I doubt you can even program a universal remote to trigger strobes.

So what is the benefit of making it compatible with IR?? Other than

1. cost savings (you're right, it's cheap)
2. cost savings (no FCC/etc testing required)
3. faster time-to-market (wihch isn't a big deal, considering how many years they a flash product remains in production

But the downsides include:

• the trigger distance is really limited with IR
• IR requires line-of-sight (or a lucky bounce off a wall, etc)

IMHO, for a $379 flash, the 580EX could have used RF instead of IR. I just bought a $40 universal remote control for our home theater that supports both RF and IR! And I just bought a 4-channel RF strobe trigger transmitter + receiver for about $30. With 580EX and 430EX, we're not talking $100 flash units, here. Even the 430EX is a coupla hundred $$. But heh, that's just one guy's opinion.

Canon uses the IR to communicate data between the master and the slave also - not just a triggering burst, but distance and FEC I believe.

You betcha. It's not just "POP!"; there is real information being transmitted (I think during the pre-flash time). But there is no technical reason that couldn't have also been done with RF.

PWs work great at triggering, but they are strictly a manual strobe device - no ETTL when using PWs. The Canon ST-E2 does allow ETTL usage via IR bursts, but with less distance and reliability than the radio transceivers for flash triggering like the PWs.

All true. And Canon could have had ETTL plus RF range plus no need for line-of-sight -- in short, "had it all", by using RF.

Oh well, I'm not gonna cry over spilt milk. The Canon flashes are what they are. And I can still get add-on RF remote triggering to work with them, albeit using the flashes in manual power mode.

JimM

I just purchased two sets of the wireless ones on ebay that uses the AC power on the receiver (before reading this thread). I'll post my experience with them when I receive them. I spent $30 total for the two sets with shipping.

dcyphert

External Power for the Canon 430ex
Does anyone know if the Canon Transistor Pack E - External Battery Pack will work with the 430ex...I need external power to perhaps also give me faster recycling times for upcoming weddings. If that isn't compatible with it can someone give me a lead on where to look, BH Photo shows this works with a 430ez?? Thanks.