Whose "Radio Interference" Problem Is It? (PW Mini/Flex)

[MasterFlash]

Glad to read so many success stories on the Forum with the new Firmware 5 for PW's Mini/Flex system. Just want to add my 2-cents on the topic of "radio interference". I don't accept that it's a Canon problem. RadioPoppers work fine when parked on top of or next to my Speedlites. PW's own MultiMax and other manual-mode radio triggers work fine with Speedlites. My Elinchrom Skyports work fine with Speedlites. So, if there's a problem, I'm more comfortable laying it at the feet of PW's approach to the Mini/Flex solution than I am saying it's a "Canon problem". For all we know, it's a "Nikon problem" too. The Mini/Flex debuted almost a year ago. As far as I know, a release date has not been announced for a Nikon version. Many, myself included, wonder why. I've been happy to give Canon criticism when and where I think it's due. The "radio interference" problem is not one of them.

[davemphoto]

Hmmm. May be a shared problem. However, I've had problems with my 430EX & PlusII. When I velcro attach a PlusII to the side of a 430EX, range drops to 6 feet. When I hang the PlusII from the lanyard on the light stand, range significantly improves. I've tested it to 50 feet. Maybe it's just my flash, but there's definitely some interference. I'm no engineer, but I think there's enough blame to go around. Canon for designing the flash, PW for not testing out thoroughly to catch it before production & the FCC that approves the use of equipment that can radiate radio frequency (yes it's in the flash manual).

I also suspect that there may be something going on with the Nikon version. As you mentioned Syl, the Mini/Flex units have been out for over a year, but still no Nikon version. Posts on PW site hint that they are working to avoid similar problems encountered with the Canon version. Could it be that the Radiopopper's TTL triggers pressured PW to release the Mini/Flex prematurely? Maybe. With all that said, I love the Mini/Flex units. I'm also very happy with PW quick response to my calls & email when I've needed help. The development of AC5 Soft Shield and free availability to those that have already purchased a Flex is most appreciated. It would be nice to have the PW with shielding built in, but for my purposes when shooting portraits the range is more than acceptable.

I'm not going to worry about who's to blame. I've made my choice in PW and I'm just going keep shooting and lighting.

[davebrockway]

I am a PW owner who is now happy with my units. I would have to say that this has been a PW problem, they are building to work with Canon equipment. Canon did not build to work with PW.

Since I upgraded to v5 I have not had any problems, with the sleeve wrapped around the PW I have tested to a distance that I don't think I would ever use (200') and it worked fine.

PW may of gone to market to quickly but it does look like they have made an honest effort to correct the problem as best they can.

Dave

[jonwestcott]

I agree although here in UK they want around $30 for an AC5! That's a fair bit of cash for a 'sticking plaster' fix for a unit you already purchased and should work as advertised..

[Crystal City]

I have to agree with Syl on this one. The PW is a Canon accessory. It should have been tested and proven to work as advertised without a work-around (AC5). Having said that, it would not surprise me if the next iteration of Canon's speedlites include some shielding.

[Olar]

I agree that PW should have discovered this problem in beta testing and done something about it before release to market. However on the other hand the Canon speedlites should never have been manufactured with such a high level of interference. In this day and age of WIFI, Bluetooth, etc., etc. no device should be built without proper shielding to eliminate any leakage.

[coryparris]

Canon builds their products to work with Canon products and triggering devices. It is PocketWizard that wants in on the action and is trying to make their products work with Canon devices. Therefore, Canon may have built their products in a way that it is challenging for PW, but it is completely PW problem. It is like buying an aftermarket part for your Ford and when it doesn't work, blaming Ford rather that the aftermarket part!

[claude]

I agree although here in UK they want around $30 for an AC5! That's a fair bit of cash for a 'sticking plaster' fix for a unit you already purchased and should work as advertised..

Hello Jon,
Do you know if for European PWs (using 433MHz) the RF issue is the same (or less or worse) as for the US frequencies?
Thank you,
Claude

[KerryG]

My understanding is that the frequency of the UK models does not suffer from the same interference as the US models.

[BlackeyCole]

I haven't had the problems I seen mentioned everywhere but then again must of my use has been in the normal portrait ranges. Sly you might be on to something there about the RF being both's problem Canon for inconsistent quality when producing the flashes and PW for pushing the release. But to PW defense they were unaware of the spectrum of the RF noise with the Canon Flashes. Call it blind bad luck. Yes I bought my original PW Flex's over a year ago and once I read the manual my problems ceased. I am glad that they released them a year ago that has given me the year to use them and be creative with them. That has given me a year's experience with them I would not have had. I had the 580exII, 580ex and 2 550's that I have used them with.