Remote shooting, remote flash, 200 feet in the air.

Phil V wrote in post #18595553
It’s a timing issue...

so you’d need a very smart trigger that was either camera aware or programmable.

It has nothing to do with timing, or the trigger being camera aware, or being programmable. Nothing.

The 603 cost about $12 ... $24 for two. It is not smart, if anything it is dumb.

Yeah.. at least it won't be scared that high up in a tree...


Unlike ME...

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18596218
It has nothing to do with timing, or the trigger being camera aware, or being programmable. Nothing.

The 603 cost about $12 ... $24 for two. It is not smart, if anything it is dumb.

You’ve clearly decided I’m ‘wrong’ without looking to read what I was responding to.

Which was...
Still can't believe someone hasn't made a receiver/shutter release system, I would think that would be pretty useful. But maybe its too niche.

As I read it the OP would like an all in one solution to fire the camera and the lights ‘at the same time’, I was explaining the timing problem, which you then also explained.

You’re clearly reading something different.

Phil V wrote in post #18598022
You’ve clearly decided I’m ‘wrong’ without looking to read what I was responding to.

Which was...
Still can't believe someone hasn't made a receiver/shutter release system, I would think that would be pretty useful. But maybe its too niche.

As I read it the OP would like an all in one solution to fire the camera and the lights ‘at the same time’, I was explaining the timing problem, which you then also explained.

You’re clearly reading something different.

As has been pointed out, the only way to accomplish something like this is to fire the camera and have the camera fire the lights. Even with mirrorless cameras, there is enough lag to get the shutter open to require that the camera send the signal to the lights when the leading curtain is out of the way.

There might be some logic to building a transceiver that will receive the signal from a remote trigger, use a circuit to fire the camera and have a second circuit read the fire signal from the camera and and transmit it to the lights.

That's a lot of embedded technology in a single piece of hardware.

Seems a lot easier, much less prone to problems and cheaper in the long run to just have two trigger/receiver sets. Thats what I do all the time.

Godox X system for the lights and Pixel wireless cable release for the camera.

Phil V wrote in post #18598022
You’ve clearly decided I’m ‘wrong’ without looking to read what I was responding to.

Which was...
Still can't believe someone hasn't made a receiver/shutter release system, I would think that would be pretty useful. But maybe its too niche.

As I read it the OP would like an all in one solution to fire the camera and the lights ‘at the same time’, I was explaining the timing problem, which you then also explained.

You’re clearly reading something different.

Oh. i see what you are saying now.

I'm approaching it from the POV that a press of one button to set the shutter release > flash fire process in motion is in practice, "at the same time"

You are approaching it from the POV that there is some tiny fraction of a second delay between shutter release signal being sent and the flash firing, so it is not technically, "at the same time"

I'm still on my first cup of coffee, but I don't think that any amount of engineering would be able to overcome the minuscule delay, or provide any benefit to the user.

Why not pull a couple extension cords up and drop them like you would a climb rope or rope for dropping limbs. Drop it on the back side so you can't see it. Use it to power a constant LED light. Then you can unplug it at the base of the tree, not worry about failures from a sending unit.