Cybersyncs faster?

[cr44]

I recently purchased two Cybersync receivers and a transmitter to replace my Canon ST-E2 as I've had some problems recently with the sunlight overriding the connection between it and the flashes. I'm not sure if it's new toy excitement, or if it's actually true. Here is my question: Is it possible that the Cybersyncs transmit faster than the ST-E2? However close it may be, it seems they have a little more "pop" (pun not intended). I'm not really sure how to describe it, but the response time seems quicker. I'm sure it's milliseconds that aren't noticeable, but...

[PacAce]

With the CyberSync or any "standard" RF remote, for that matter, all you're doing is transmitting the sync trigger signal to the remote flash. You have to set the remote flash to manual mode and set the power level. When you press the shutter button fully, the sync trigger signal is sent immediately to the flash without the camera needing to do any flash exposure calculations.

With the ST-E2 or any flash set as a master and working in ETTL mode, when you press the shutter button fully, before the shutters are opened, the camera first needs to determine what exposure is required from the flash. This involves the master sending out a command to the remote slaves to fire a preflash and then coordinating it so that they all fire the preflash at the same time. And if you are using the different groups, each group needs to take turns firing the preflash.

One the camera has determined the required flash exposure, the master then needs to tell the slaves at what power level to fire at and then coordinate the firing of the main flash so that all the slaves fire at the same time.

So, yes, there will be a slight but noticeable delay from the time you press the shutter button and when the picture is actually taken.

If you used a flash as the master instead of the ST-E2 (ST-E2 can't do manual) and then set the flashes to manual mode, you probably wouldn't notice any difference from the CyberSyncs.

[cr44]

So does the signal get transmitted to the flashes faster with the cybersyncs?

And what do you mean by the ST-E2 can't do manual?

Thanks for your feedback!

[bobbyz]

Isn't ST-e using IR vs RF for radio triggers. RF will be lot faster than IR.

[40Dude6aedyk]

Electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light. Light, radio waves and infrared light all travel at the speed of light since they are electromagnetic radiation.

Now if you had written that RF is faster than sound, that would be true.

[PacAce]

Electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light. Light, radio waves and infrared light all travel at the speed of light since they are electromagnetic radiation.

Now if you had written that RF is faster than sound, that would be true.

^^ +1

[PacAce]

So does the signal get transmitted to the flashes faster with the cybersyncs?

And what do you mean by the ST-E2 can't do manual?

Thanks for your feedback!

No, the signal does not get transmitted faster in either of them. The difference is in how much information is transmitted with one versus the other.

The ST-E2 is used to control slaves in ETTL mode. It cannot control the slaves in manual mode although the ST-E2 can trigger slaves set to manual mode.

A flash used as a master can control slaves in both ETTL mode and manual mode.

[cr44]

You guys rock! Thank you.
One more thing, radio waves go directly between transmitter and receiver correct? And if IR is bounced and reflected if there isn't a direct line of sight between the transmitter and receiver, wouldn't the radio frequency transmit faster?

I really appreciate this!

[PacAce]

You guys rock! Thank you.
One more thing, radio waves go directly between transmitter and receiver correct? And if IR is bounced and reflected if there isn't a direct line of sight between the transmitter and receiver, wouldn't the radio frequency transmit faster?

I really appreciate this!

The speed of light is the speed of light and that's the speed RF and IR signals travel at. Theoretically, if one signal had to travel farther and longer than another signal, then of course, one will get to the destination faster than the other but at the speed of light, the difference in distance would need to be tremendous, as in getting off of Earth. ;)

[bobbyz]

But IR signals is turning on/off the LED at some know data rate. On the othe side detector converts it back to electrical signal. Depending on the design, it could take lot longer for IR signal to be processed.

[cr44]

Again, thank you. My curiosities have been satisfied! I really appreciate everyone's response.

[40Dude6aedyk]

But IR signals is turning on/off the LED at some know data rate. On the othe side detector converts it back to electrical signal. Depending on the design, it could take lot longer for IR signal to be processed.

Right. And the RF signals have to be turned on/off and sent to the antenna at some known data rate as well. And the receiver has to receive the RF signal and convert it back to an electric signal. Depending on the design, it could take a lot longer for the RF signal to be processed.

[vadim_c]

You guys rock! Thank you.
One more thing, radio waves go directly between transmitter and receiver correct? And if IR is bounced and reflected if there isn't a direct line of sight between the transmitter and receiver, wouldn't the radio frequency transmit faster?

I really appreciate this!
Brilliant ! The light speed is 3.333e-9 sec. per meter so if your light bouces from the wall and have to travel 5m farther than you have a delay of 1.66e-8 seconds ! That definitely is too much and you are going to get all sorts of artifacts; motion blur, disrupted shutter synchronization, etc. :p

[PacAce]

But IR signals is turning on/off the LED at some know data rate. On the othe side detector converts it back to electrical signal. Depending on the design, it could take lot longer for IR signal to be processed.

Just for technical accuracy, there is no LED involved in transmitting the IR signal from the master to the slave. It's all done by the flashing of the the flash tube (yes, there's a little flash tube inside the ST-E2, too, hidden behind that black IR panel). ;)

[LONDON808]

erm - the main diffrence i can see that would be a problem is IR is line of sight RF is not - and bouncing IR of walls - Dose not work that well - RF is easily obsorbed by objects - take your remote from your TV and try bounce it - sometimes it will work if a lighht wall but not if its a dark one

although RF dose not travel faster then IR - RF can carry more information in a shorter burst - making it faster to transmit information -

so IR can be blocked by softboxes and such and is slower to carry bulk info

[PacAce]

erm - the main diffrence i can see that would be a problem is IR is line of sight RF is not - and bouncing IR of walls - Dose not work that well - RF is easily obsorbed by objects - take your remote from your TV and try bounce it - sometimes it will work if a lighht wall but not if its a dark one

although RF dose not travel faster then IR - RF can carry more information in a shorter burst - making it faster to transmit information -

so IR can be blocked by softboxes and such and is slower to carry bulk info
That's not exactly true, either. Both RF and IR can be made to modulate the same information. The data transfer rate has nothing to do with the carrier medium, i.e IR or RF, used.

[bobbyz]

Right. And the RF signals have to be turned on/off and sent to the antenna at some known data rate as well. And the receiver has to receive the RF signal and convert it back to an electric signal. Depending on the design, it could take a lot longer for the RF signal to be processed.

You absolutely right. I must be having a brain f*rt yesterday or maybe I am turing into my pointy haired boss.

Both can be slow data rate or fast date rate, whether it is RF or IR should not matter at all.

[vadim_c]

...
although RF dose not travel faster then IR - RF can carry more information in a shorter burst - making it faster to transmit information -

Not quite correct. IR of for example 750 nm can carry 160000 times more information than a standard 2.4 Gz RF device. A good example is optical cables.