rp_photo wrote:
Other than sticker shock, is their transparency.

You set them up and quickly stop thinking about them during the shoot.

I got a pair after I finally got tired of my cheapies misfiring ... "PW" are extremely reliable, plus they also work with my light meter...

Triple M Photography wrote:
I have several of them. I find them to be seriously unreliable. Everything from simply won't work to excessive corrosion inside. I remove the batteries each time. I never have a problem with any of my camera equipment, lights, or household electronic equipment. It is just my pocket wizards. Very frustrating.

Get the new "PW" plus II transmitter...

Great Road Studio wrote:

I got a pair after I finally got tired of my cheapies misfiring ... "PW" are extremely reliable, plus they also work with my light meter...

I use an L-358 meter, but question the need for the plug-in PW module.

With camera and meter around neck, it is not than diffcult to temporarily connect the meter to the "Camera/flash" port with the provided PW cable while the PW stays in the hot shoe.

Personality Imaging wrote:
I have found the cheapies to be far more reliable.

SRSLY and O RLY?

rp_photo wrote:

I use an L-358 meter, but question the need for the plug-in PW module.

With camera and meter around neck, it is not than diffcult to temporarily connect the meter to the "Camera/flash" port with the provided PW cable while the PW stays in the hot shoe.

one doesn't "need" the module,  but having it sure is nice.

rp_photo wrote:
Other than sticker shock, is their transparency.

You set them up and quickly stop thinking about them during the shoot.

Yeah but the funny thing is they do the same as the old Quantum 4i system, but at a higher cost.

I would also hate to have something sticking up like an erect penis on my camera, and would more than likely attach it to my neckstrap or something and use a cord to connect the thing.

Anyway, do we need a new pocket wizard thread every week?

rp_photo wrote:

I use an L-358 meter, but question the need for the plug-in PW module.

With camera and meter around neck, it is not than diffcult to temporarily connect the meter to the "Camera/flash" port with the provided PW cable while the PW stays in the hot shoe.

yeah thats how I use to do it ... hey I like my toys! whaaa whaaa!

AndrewThomasDesigns wrote:
I would also hate to have something sticking up like an erect penis on my camera

so your concern with PWs is with the aesthetics?

D Moreland Photography wrote:
i have both - the pw and the cheapies - and never had a problem with either but i honestly use my cheapies more than the pw's

So what are some of the examples of the cheapies?

rp_photo wrote:
I use an L-358 meter, but question the need for the plug-in PW module.

With camera and meter around neck, it is not than diffcult to temporarily connect the meter to the "Camera/flash" port with the provided PW cable while the PW stays in the hot shoe.

Great Road Studio wrote:
yeah thats how I use to do it ... hey I like my toys! whaaa whaaa!

I usually have the camera and attached PW around my neck, so the attached PW is always handy.

The problem is, I often leave the meter elsewhere and don't have it when I find out I need it.

AndrewThomasDesigns wrote:
I would also hate to have something sticking up like an erect penis on my camera, and would more than likely attach it to my neckstrap or something and use a cord to connect the thing.

WTF?

Great Road Studio wrote:

Get the new "PW" plus II transmitter...

I have two "PW" plus II's and they are definately better. I still get silly problems with them not transmitting. Then I will swap them from camera to stand-alone flash and they work perfect; even with all setting on each one identical.

Jamie-JAYCE-Charles wrote:
This is my first time hearing something NEGATIVE about pocket wizards
=/

I plan on purchaising some soon,or around when i purchase a lighting system.  I've always heard they were reliable now this.

WTF

I hear you. I feel the same. It does not seem to matter if I use batteries or A/C current... same reliability issues. My studio is kept at 50% humidity. I have tied up close to a G-note in these now.

Triple M Photography wrote:

So what are some of the examples of the cheapies?

my cheapies is a set of cactus receivers and a transmitter

http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.p … 274&page=1

Triple M Photography wrote:

I hear you. I feel the same. It does not seem to matter if I use batteries or A/C cuurent... same reliability issues. My studio is kept at 50% humidity. I have tied up close to a G-note in these now.

Why did you keep buying them if they gave you problems?

rp_photo wrote:
Why did you keep buying them if they gave you problems?

My first two were the dedicated "send" or "receive" type. When the Plus II's came out I bought two of these hoping they had any issues sorted out. That and the fact that evryone else was giving such positive reviews and nothing compariable was available.

As I did mention the Plus II's are better but by no means 100%.

PANHEAD PHOTOGRAPHY  wrote:
UM SYNC CORD!

Sync cords are unavoidable, even when using PW's, and are perfectly acceptable for intra-stand purposes (Such as the PW-to-flash connection) and somewhat acceptable for inter-stand connections (A likely scenario given the cost of equipping each stand with a PW).

Where they are unaccptable is connecting the camera to the lighting system.
During the thanfully short period that I did this, I was plauged by:

1. Cords detaching from the camera or frame-mounted connector.

2. Failure of flash and camera-side connectors (mostly in the form of soldered connection breakage or shorting)

3. Random firing from failing connectors.

4. Only getting flashes with horizontal but not vertical orientation.

5. Cords not being long enough.

6. Cords being long enough but kinking or bunching when stretched.

On a positive note, no one ever did a "Dick Van Dyke" due to a cord.

(See opeing of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBnU4nii98Q for furher explanation of a "Dick Van Dyke")

Jeff Marsh ATLANTA  wrote:
ONLY ON MM would you hear this shit.
when the shoot counts (ie $$$$$$$) rely on the best.
BUT, I will go check for excessive corrosion.. haden't heard that before.

Could be from contamination with BS.

Jeff Marsh ATLANTA  wrote:
ONLY ON MM would you hear this shit.
when the shoot counts (ie $$$$$$$) rely on the best.
BUT, I will go check for excessive corrosion.. haden't heard that before.

sometimes the most expensive is not the best...i figure when the shoot counts rely on what works - all gear does not work the same for everyone but you know what gear works for you...i shoot for a living and use my cheapos more than my pw's because, even though both work, i just prefer using those, and honestly my client does not care if i use a cactus that cost $15 or a pw that cost $300, they want the shot they are paying me for and that's all that really matters....use what works to get the shot you need...just my .02

Jamie-JAYCE-Charles wrote:
This is my first time hearing something NEGATIVE about pocket wizards
=/

Lots of threads on this subject.

James Bluck wrote:

Lots of threads on this subject.

on what them failing =/ that sucks i recently got a cactus and i think i had no misfires i only used them on 100 shots though or maybe i had one ::shrugs:: who knows i wanted more distance so i figured i would look into some pocket wizards