Whether 4 channel or 16 channel the thing to be aware of is that there
is no quality control with respect to range. They also tend to be very
directional. The 4 channel units are strongest to the front and weakest
to the rear and reach only 2/3 or 1/2 the distance to the front. Most
do not reach the 100 foot/30 meter spec although I have one that reaches
to 150 feet to the front but only about 75 feet to the rear.
The 16 channel unit was advertised as having a 50 meter range which is
why I bought it. I've forgotten what my testing revealed but to the
best of my recollection the replacement unit got to about 125 feet to
one side and less to other directions. It's distance pattern was
directional but different from the 4 channel units. No doubt any other
sample would likely be different. If distance matters you need to test
each one to know what you've got.
The distance matters very much to me since I shoot with auxiliary studio
flashes setup in large function halls. As long as I've got about 75
feet I'm in pretty good shape. Of course, if all you're doing is
shooting in a studio any of them will work as long as they're not
clearly defective as was my first 16 channel sample. Make sure to test
for repeated firing consistency as well. That first 16 channel sample
worked from over 100 feet on the first time then wouldn't work at
anything more than about 10 feet for a while and sometimes wouldn't fire
at all.
Finally, I think the number of channels is really immaterial. If you
shoot at a large hotel and you use Pocket Wizards you might find that
another photographer is there with a Pocket Wizard in another room and
need to change channels to avoid interference. Or you might be shooting
in another room yourself and need to change channels so the lights set
up on the dance floor aren't goiong off all the time when they're not
needed. But chances are you're not going to run into another photog
using these same units and even if you do 4 channels is plenty.
Chuck Norcutt
Wayne Culberson wrote:
> As always, I probably should have asked here first before ordering. I just
> assumed the 16 channel ones would be quite a bit better.
> Wayne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:50 PM
> Subject: [OM] Re: What's wrong with this picture...
>
>
>
>>I recently bought one of these 16 channel radio slaves from another
>>seller in China, primarily to get the PC connection on the back for
>>easier use with portable flashes and also to see if the range was any
>>better than the 4 channel units I already have.
>>
>>The first unit was defective in that it was very erratic with respect to
>>range. It might work perfectly fine from 50 feet away one time and not
>>from 10 feet the next. The replacement works much better but none that
>>I have (now on my 5th unit) meet the highly optimistic range assertions.
>> The seller happily replaced the unit but I had to pay return shipping
>>to China. I'd buy another one of these if I needed the PC connection
>>but otherwise I'd stay with the 4 channel stuff since it's cheaper and
>>reaches just as far. And you can't mix them. They're not frequency
>>compatible.
>>
>>Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>Wayne Culberson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was in the market yesterday for a 77mm cir. polarizer yesterday, and I
>>>looked at those. I probably should have gone for it, but ended up
>>>ordering
>>>this slightly used Tiffen one instead, # 300056784599. It's not in the
>>>same
>>>league, I know.
>>>However, I did try ordering a different cheaper item from a Hong Kong
>>>seller, # 110064204636.
>>>Everyone has to get burned sometime on that site, so I figure I may as
>>>well
>>>get my turn in.
>>>Wayne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sorry, not asking you to evaluate an image.
>>>>
>>>>Here's an oboy auction for a Hoya 77mm circular polarizer. Near the top
>>>>of the line. Seller is "besteastern" in HK, has been around for 2
>>>>years, has 7,000 sales and 99.6% positive feedback rating. Pretty
>>>>impressive actually. And at only $66.95 is a great deal. Or is it?
>>>><http://cgi.ebay.com/HOYA-77mm-PRO1-DIGITAL-Circular-Polarizer-Filter-DMC_W0QQitemZ290057441302QQihZ019QQcategoryZ15217QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>>>>
>>>>Now, here's the B&H ad for the same product.
>>>><http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=391185&is=REG&addedTroughType=search>
>>>>Note that the price at $194.95 is *** 3 times as much ***.
>>>>
>>>>Is this one of those; "If it sounds too good to be true then... " If
>>>>so, what's the catch? Counterfeit merchandise? If so, why so many
>>>>happy customers. They can't tell the difference? Real merchandise
>>>>slipped out the back door? Stolen merchandise?
>>>>
>>>>Comments please.
>>>>
>>>>Chuck Norcutt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>==============================================
>>>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>==============================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>==============================================
>>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>==============================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>==============================================
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|