[rawr]

acon brings its website alive acon-tech - wonderful photography, that is.

A promising development!

Let's hope they have better luck keeping the business and web site site alive, and the domain under their control this time around.

[Class A]

acon brings its website alive acon-tech - wonderful photography, that is.

Ah, yes.

Complete with the text that was stolen from an advert by Dassault Systèmes (but incorrectly adapted "We offers an excellent salary..."). Of course it is pure coincidence that Acon's "eCommerce and Web Developer" career offering is identical to a "eCommerce and Web Developer" position description by Dassault Systèmes.

Acon really like INNOAS' company vision because they copied it word for word.

The front page image with the stolen jumping skier image is back as well. Plus the announcement of the "Compact Flash" that has been "about to be released" for years and years.

"Acon Tech is an division of Acon international Group". Yes, of course, the world famous "Acon international Group" with its many divisions, one of which is "Acon Tech".

Let's hope the R930 expert (most likely the guy behind the operation) won't return to the forum again to trash talk other products.

To clarify: I'm not commenting on the R930 trigger; I understand it has been useful to some. However, the "business" tactics of the guy behind that trigger are most certainly questionable.

[rawr]

I understand it has been useful to some.

Once upon a time, it was the only P-TTL radio trigger available.

Now there are other, nicer options, of course, from Godox etc.

I really can't recommend Acon anymore, due to their sloppy business operation as much as their outdated technology.

[eversun]

Once upon a time, it was the only P-TTL radio trigger available.

Now there are other, nicer options, of course, from Godox etc.

I really can't recommend Acon anymore, due to their sloppy business operation as much as their outdated technology.

Though come out for many years. I think this trigger has its unique charateristics. look,

1st, The only available radio-optical trigger system. that means you need only a pair to work many flashes. no need to buy receivers for all flashes.
2ed, the only available trigger to make Pentax to Nikon CLS adaptor, that means you can nikon flashes only buying a transmitter.

[Class A]

The only available radio-optical trigger system.

What do you mean by "radio-optical"?
Probably not the approach taken by the Aokatec AK-TTL triggers, correct?

If you are simply talking about a mixed radio / optical operation then other trigger systems support that as well. Not supporting full Nikon CLS features for any optically communicating flashes, though. If that is desired then the Aokatec system would be applicable.

that means you need only a pair to work many flashes. no need to buy receivers for all flashes.

Again, that is not unique to Acon.

the only available trigger to make Pentax to Nikon CLS adaptor

Note that the Cactus system also supports the mixing of brands. In other words, one can use a Nikon, Canon, etc. flash in combination with a Pentax camera. If by "adapter" you mean a conversion from camera hot-shoe to a flash mounted on the camera-mounted trigger then to the best of my knowledge even that is supported by the Cactus V6II.

that means you can nikon flashes only buying a transmitter.

You need at least one receiver.

A single transmitter cannot directly control Nikon flashes.
Again, I don't see why you think the Acon system is different to other systems with respect to how many units are needed for standard firing. If, for some reason, optical communication is used between most flashes then the Aokatec approach would provide native support (i.e., not just standard firing).

It doesn't make much sense, though, to achieve the benefits of radio-triggering only for one flash while the rest have to suffer the limitations of optical triggering.

If one assumes radio-control for each flash then there are a number of systems which can achieve brand interoperability.

[paulster]

It always strikes me as odd when we get someone here whose only posts are about the purported benefits of the Acon system. Feels like we’ve been here before...

[eversun]

What do you mean by "radio-optical"?
Probably not the approach taken by the Aokatec AK-TTL triggers, correct?

If you are simply talking about a mixed radio / optical operation then other trigger systems support that as well. Not supporting full Nikon CLS features for any optically communicating flashes, though. If that is desired then the Aokatec system would be applicable.


Again, that is not unique to Acon.


Note that the Cactus system also supports the mixing of brands. In other words, one can use a Nikon, Canon, etc. flash in combination with a Pentax camera. If by "adapter" you mean a conversion from camera hot-shoe to a flash mounted on the camera-mounted trigger then to the best of my knowledge even that is supported by the Cactus V6II.


You need at least one receiver.

A single transmitter cannot directly control Nikon flashes.
Again, I don't see why you think the Acon system is different to other systems with respect to how many units are needed for standard firing. If, for some reason, optical communication is used between most flashes then the Aokatec approach would provide native support (i.e., not just standard firing).

It doesn't make much sense, though, to achieve the benefits of radio-triggering only for one flash while the rest have to suffer the limitations of optical triggering.

If one assumes radio-control for each flash then there are a number of systems which can achieve brand interoperability.

well, Just think it likes a lens adaptor which connect the sony camera body to nikon lens.

the acon technoloy just let people own nikon flashes system use theiir flashes on the pentax. of course, HSS, group control. etc. adapter ONLY. yet receiver is optional not mandatory.

---

Last edited by eversun; 11-10-2019 at 03:27 AM.

[Class A]

Just think it likes a lens adaptor which connect the sony camera body to nikon lens.

So why do you think that the Acon system is unique in that when other systems accomplish the same?

yet receiver is optional not mandatory.

Again, that only applies if you rely on optical communication. For radio communication, at least one receiver is required; as in any other system.

Other systems have speedlights or strobes that have built-in radio receivers, whereas that's not the case for the Acon system.
That, indeed, is a real difference.

[eversun]

So why do you think that the Acon system is unique in that when other systems accomplish the same?

Can you explain your understanding for the 'same'?

For example, mount a Nikon SU800 or Flash on the transmitter on pentex body, do HSS and group control?again, no receiver. can any other do this same?

[Class A]

For example, mount a Nikon SU800 or Flash on the transmitter on pentex body, do HSS and group control?

First of all, I don't see what is so exciting about using a Nikon flash on-camera.

Almost all flashes work on a Pentax camera and only if you want P-TTL then you need a Pentax-dedicated flash or an adapter.
So the application range (one has a Pentax camera, a Nikon flash, wants to use the flash on-camera, and wants to use P-TTL) is rather narrow.

Why not just use a Pentax compatible flash in the first place or use a third-party flash that mounts on a Pentax camera and can be controlled via radio without needing an additional radio receiver? In almost all cases, it is better to get the flash off-camera anyhow.

If on-camera flash usage is indicated then I'd recommend using a flash bracket rather than putting the weight of a flash on a transmitter. Once the flash is on a bracket, you can either radio control it directly or add a receiver (which you typically already have if you have a transmitter).

Regarding other systems supporting the same "adapter" functionality, it is my understanding that the Cactus V6II with the X-TTL firmware does this. It treats the on-transceiver hot-shoe as a fifth group and one can assign a flash system and flash model to the hot-shoe. So the V6II should work as a translator between P-TTL and i-TTL. It performs this translation function when using two transceivers so I don't see why it wouldn't work when using a single unit, given that camera system and on-transceiver flash system can be configured independently from each other.

Anyhow, AFAIC, off-camera flash usage is far more interesting and a number of systems support more than just supporting Nikon flashes at the receiver end, including the nice option of not having to deal with an extra receiver attached to the off-camera flash at all. A receiver-less setup is less bulky, quicker to set up, and spares one the trouble of managing the receiver batteries.

[eversun]

First of all, I don't see what is so exciting about using a Nikon flash on-camera.

Almost all flashes work on a Pentax camera and only if you want P-TTL then you need a Pentax-dedicated flash or an adapter.
So the application range (one has a Pentax camera, a Nikon flash, wants to use the flash on-camera, and wants to use P-TTL) is rather narrow.

Why not just use a Pentax compatible flash in the first place or use a third-party flash that mounts on a Pentax camera and can be controlled via radio without needing an additional radio receiver? In almost all cases, it is better to get the flash off-camera anyhow.

If on-camera flash usage is indicated then I'd recommend using a flash bracket rather than putting the weight of a flash on a transmitter. Once the flash is on a bracket, you can either radio control it directly or add a receiver (which you typically already have if you have a transmitter).

Regarding other systems supporting the same "adapter" functionality, it is my understanding that the Cactus V6II with the X-TTL firmware does this. It treats the on-transceiver hot-shoe as a fifth group and one can assign a flash system and flash model to the hot-shoe. So the V6II should work as a translator between P-TTL and i-TTL. It performs this translation function when using two transceivers so I don't see why it wouldn't work when using a single unit, given that camera system and on-transceiver flash system can be configured independently from each other.

Anyhow, AFAIC, off-camera flash usage is far more interesting and a number of systems support more than just supporting Nikon flashes at the receiver end, including the nice option of not having to deal with an extra receiver attached to the off-camera flash at all. A receiver-less setup is less bulky, quicker to set up, and spares one the trouble of managing the receiver batteries.

OhhhhK, you need not explain so long etc. I just asked why you put "the same" words with regard to what I talked about the "unique", fact, and fair are what is about.

and, I have no intention to "mislead", "guide" some to buy the acon or not to. I use nikon system and have many flashes( not 'a' flash)have CLS work happily.so I use an "adaptor" to connect all of them to the pentax , of course, through the SU800(I think there are a lot of nikon triggers there too).

I am happy to get rid of even ONE receiver.

[LensCleaner01]

the solution over the hss is still not the best solution in since of what you want, because the most light gathered is direct light
a black dog can look very weird in this condition

the shades are very hard , and due the reflection of direct light you also lose some detail where the light might respread not very well


what you actually want is a leaf shutter that fits to the current lens opening, if its only a leaf shutter the maximum sync might be 1/400 or 1/500

a leaf shutter that fits to the current opening reach far more 1/2000 , 1/8000 , 1/16000

then the problem with the y-sync is solved
having a shutter speed of lets say 1/60 you also have +1/125 to sync this picture
the negativ shutter speed so sayed


hss is a good solution if you have nothing else and want to be certain you dont get a motion blur or movements


why we just dont do it as hasselblad ? they have a leaf-shutter and a rolling shutter


if anybody has seen the video mode of the iphone 11 it is already very good a lot of classical "video" cameras cant compete anymore , in pictures we might still got the advantage but whats about the future ?

a classical f-stop for a smartphone is F1.7

the mirror therefore will leave if we want or not the time already has choosen that , it got replaced by a lcd display what is a good replacement in my opinion

i heared the next pentax go up to 1/250 y-sync, that doesnt sound so bad