MAC launches 30-Day Satisfaction Guarantee for FlexTT5 & MiniTT1

If you don't like the sock, there are other brands you can purchase, I don't mind the sock, especially if its only needed when doing long distances...?

MDteX wrote in post #9489303
I know I shouldn't do this but....

The Flex and Mini were specifically designed for Canon flashes. They should work out of the box. You can't tell me that PW didn't have trouble making their Canon specific product work with Canon's flagship flash.

Sorry mate, I think you may need to read up a bit on RF noise and the potential for copy to copy differences (due to the tolerance of different components used). Give PW credit for working around the problems that Canon left them and give credit to the distributor for offering this guarantee.

philllie1 wrote in post #9488811
yes here we are again. and there are people with a different point of view out there. they see that many brands like skyports or radiopoppers work perfectly with canon flashes - but only the pw products have problems. so don't tell us, it's canon's fault.
(I also don't want to continue on that...there are just 2 different opinions about that)

Canon admits the 580ex series RF noise are a problem with the new FlexTT5. LOL

Why is it nobody is complaining about the 430EX II + Flex's? Because there is none. No RF noise on the 430's. I talked to the PW rep that has been working with Canon, rumor has it the new production of the 580EXII are going to include a rf plate at the bottom of the shoe fix rf noise.

Anway, Skyports are just triggers, just like cybersyncs and do not have any ETTL controls. If I go with the RP PX's, I would still need buy a ST-E2 or Commander and/or another Speedlight just to have ETTL control.

Quick question, maybe a little OT, but I can't find an answer anywhere... are the Plus II's and Multimax's also affected by the 580EXII's RF noise? Because I know that the PW ETTL stuff and the old trigger-only units work on the same frequency... but I've never heard any complaints about range or misfiring with the Plus II/Multimax?

Hopefully someone has an answer, I've been looking everywhere.

zaathrus wrote in post #9490755
Sorry mate, I think you may need to read up a bit on RF noise and the potential for copy to copy differences (due to the tolerance of different components used). Give PW credit for working around the problems that Canon left them and give credit to the distributor for offering this guarantee.

I'm sure glad PW doesn't make critical software like airline flight controls. The planes would crash. Well probably not. They wouldn't get off the ground.

Anyone experienced in any type of testing realizes you don't test a single object. If there was a large test sample they would have surely uncovered the issue. Again it was designed for a specific purpose---Canon flashes.

Adios mate!

MDteX wrote in post #9493919
I'm sure glad PW doesn't make critical software like airline flight controls. The planes would crash. Well probably not. They wouldn't get off the ground.

Anyone experienced in any type of testing realizes you don't test a single object. If there was a large test sample they would have surely uncovered the issue. Again it was designed for a specific purpose---Canon flashes.

Adios mate!

If they were making flight controls, it should be easier, because everything else in the chain would have to be up to spec, not just "Oh well, this is how it is" stuff from Canon.

And they did get a bunch of flashes to test (as I understand it), but they didn't do the smart thing and buy from different suppliers, eBay, etc to get a good range, the just bought a contiguous chunk from Canon.

MDteX wrote in post #9493919
I'm sure glad PW doesn't make critical software like airline flight controls. The planes would crash. Well probably not. They wouldn't get off the ground.

Anyone experienced in any type of testing realizes you don't test a single object. If there was a large test sample they would have surely uncovered the issue. Again it was designed for a specific purpose---Canon flashes.

Adios mate!

What's your definition of a "large test sample?"

MDteX wrote in post #9493919
I'm sure glad PW doesn't make critical software like airline flight controls. The planes would crash. Well probably not. They wouldn't get off the ground.

Anyone experienced in any type of testing realizes you don't test a single object. If there was a large test sample they would have surely uncovered the issue. Again it was designed for a specific purpose---Canon flashes.

Adios mate!

They did test samples of various canon flashes. Your inference does not appear to be valid...