THE AC7 POCKETWIZARD RFI SHIELD COMETH... JULY 09

[1danny]

www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10039-10081 (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10039-10081)

www.pocketwizard.com/news_events/news/ac7/ (http://www.pocketwizard.com/news_events/news/ac7/)

FINALLY SOME INFO ITS CALLED THE AC7
no need for oce3 cord, it used an electronic filter and connects your 580 to tt5.
FROM MY FIRST look bulky, its gonna be fun fitting this in the bag, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do. from the read a 300% increase in range, im hoping that translates in a 300% increase in reliability of the ettl data being sent and recieved between units.
where will my cpe3/cpe3 have a hole so that i can still plug that in? how much,
& it looks like the addon pistol grip is gonna be the upsell part

[grewbek]

What a mess! I hope Canon takes this as a sign that it is time to update its strobe portfolio to:
1 - eliminate the RF issues
2 - update the ST-E2
3 - add sync ports to the rest of the line (besides the 580ex2)

Sorry, little bit of a rant here and not looking to draw fire, just seems like it's time to update the strobe portfolio a little bit.

[Familiaphoto]

Ok, so I'm expected to pay $200 for a receiver and then spend more for a shield? I think I'll wait.

Also, I don't see this as a Canon issue but a PW issue. PW focused on Canon first and knew about Interference before the product release. Should Canon update thing, probably, but this is a PW issue not a Canon issue.

[drh681]

couldn't I just wrap the flash with some hardware cloth?
or if that is too ugly, what about some nice brass filter mesh?
I bet there is something similar inside that logoed shell.

[jmborkowski]

PW focused on Canon first and knew about Interference before the product release.
To hear them tell it, they didn't. The strobes they picked up for testing were a) newer and b) consecutive (or close) serial numbers with fairly low noise.

They found a wide variance in the amount of noise emitted by different models/serial numbers when they started troubleshooting the issue after the units were out in the wild. Which, obviously, is a bit late.

[k_strecker]

couldn't I just wrap the flash with some hardware cloth?
or if that is too ugly, what about some nice brass filter mesh?
I bet there is something similar inside that logoed shell.

It's the transmission through the hot shoe contacts that you'll have a hard time filtering out all by yourself. Pocketwizard to the rescue!

[mikekelley]

Ok, so I'm expected to pay $200 for a receiver and then spend more for a shield? I think I'll wait.

Also, I don't see this as a Canon issue but a PW issue. PW focused on Canon first and knew about Interference before the product release. Should Canon update thing, probably, but this is a PW issue not a Canon issue.


This isn't really the case. I have a 580 EX II that gets a laughable ten feet of range at most, and my other 580 EX II has no problem getting 100 feet of range.

There is variance in every product.

[Familiaphoto]

To hear them tell it, they didn't. The strobes they picked up for testing were a) newer and b) consecutive (or close) serial numbers with fairly low noise.

They found a wide variance in the amount of noise emitted by different models/serial numbers when they started troubleshooting the issue after the units were out in the wild. Which, obviously, is a bit late.

This isn't really the case. I have a 580 EX II that gets a laughable ten feet of range at most, and my other 580 EX II has no problem getting 100 feet of range.

There is variance in every product.

Any issue on the Canon side does not excuse a lack of testing on PW's part. Being in the software industry I know it is important to test software on various platforms and various versions of a platform. I find it a flaw in their testing to think that they could get a consecutive series of flash and think they covered all the variations. As I said above, I think Canon needs to address things, but this does not excuse PW not catching this in their testing cycle.

[jmborkowski]

Any issue on the Canon side does not excuse a lack of testing on PW's part. Being in the software industry I know it is important to test software on various platforms and various versions of a platform. I find it a flaw in their testing to think that they could get a consecutive series of flash and think they covered all the variations. As I said above, I think Canon needs to address things, but this does not excuse PW not catching this in their testing cycle.
Oh yeah, I don't disagree. Part of me thinks they knew and released the units anyway, knowing there wasn't much they could do about it.

[1danny]

THIS IS SO NOT CANONS FAULT THIS IS PW FAULT. I WANNA KNOW HOW MUCH, AND AFTER LOOKING AT THE STROBIST BLOG (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2009/05/update-latest-on-pw-flexminis.html), IT LOOKS LIKE THEY PLAN ON RELEASING SOMETHING ELSE.
Watch This Space

I had been holding off on this post for a bit, hoping to include an additional accessory PW is getting ready to announce. Alas, they put the kibash on your reading about it here first. They did tell me I could hint vaguely, tho.

Hmm...
Okay, so it is smaller than a breadbox, will be of interest to many here and will spark much speculation on exactly how far this Trojan Horse Remote plans to wheel itself into the relationship between cameras and flashes.

I wish I could say more, but I can't. But I will put an update topper onto this post when they go live with it.

BUT WHY SO HUSH HUSH? SPILL THE BEANS, PW ALREADY SCREWED UP. COME CLEAN AND FIX IT.

[drh681]

I think it was in that same blog that a PW designer admits that they should have just bought the sest flashes from E-bay.
they are perfectly cognizant of the flop in their testing.
I had missed the part about the signal choke built into the flash shield, good thinking there...
the variable geometry for the mounting system was fairly sharp too.

[dano57]

I am in the majority here and think PW screwed up, I now have a mini and 3 flex's that I wish I hadn't spent a small fortune on. So for PW to make their mistake right with you what would it take? I have a few ideas but let's see what yours is....

[Palladium]

I am in the majority here and think PW screwed up, I now have a mini and 3 flex's that I wish I hadn't spent a small fortune on. So for PW to make their mistake right with you what would it take? I have a few ideas but let's see what yours is....

Here's a look for the other side of the fence - I've had the new gear since their introduction. A couple of minis and 4 flexes and they have paid for themselves many, many, many times over. I've gotten more "money" shots on the run using ETTL than I could and used to get using OCF without ETTL.

For users still having distance issues why not consider 430exII, problem solved.

[Palladium]

dupped post...

[DwightMcCann]

Please note that this device is still not available. Each month they promise the next month. If they hadn't totally screwed up their testing and promised such enormous distances it wouldn't be a problem I suppose, but PW always seems to over estimate themselves and underestimate how long it will take them to do something. The Nikon TT1/TT5 are the same deal! What a waste.

[BJWOK]

another reason to go with radio poppers...

how many reasons do you need?

[DwightMcCann]

Radio Poppers will NOT trigger CAMERAS! Hello!

[BJWOK]

true dwight, but i wonder for how many people that function is important?