Originally posted by biz-engineer You work for Cactus?
No, I beta-tested the RF60 and V6 and gave Cactus feedback, but I'm not affiliated with Cactus.
I often try to make others as enthusiastic about the Cactus system as I am because I would like to see Cactus survive as opposed to losing a price fight against non-comparable products from Yongnuo. I would want my future equipment to be Cactus gear again as they are well-thought out products that I enjoy using. I would hate to have a Yongnuo fail on me on location, having to use the manual to understand the menus,
step through groups with a button even when they are inactive, etc. Admittedly, I have never used an YN 560-TX myself but from what I read about it, it wouldn't be half as fun and efficient to use as a V6.
Originally posted by biz-engineer I saw you are supporting the RF60 on Catcus website... :-)
I don't "support" the RF60 on the Cactus website. I regularly visit the Cactus community forum to see whether I can help someone with a question they have.
The V6 was a game changer as far as Pentax is concerned (other brands had triggers like the Odin before) and hence I'll always be grateful to Cactus for making this great trigger compatible with Pentax. The YN560-TX was released quite a while later so I could not compare it to the V6 in the V6 review. The YN 560-TX only works with a subset of Yongnuo flashes, as opposed to the V6 that is compatible with Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus regarding flash systems and even with Fujifilm regarding TTL pass-through.
Note that the YN560-TX does not allow one to use an on-camera flash on top of the trigger. For me personally, that's not an issue, but others like to use a (potentially P-TTL) on-camera flash in addition to triggering off-camera flashes.
Originally posted by biz-engineer Well, the RF60 does not have the hotshoe that allow TTL metering, so the RF60 is essentially a manual flash, same as Yongnuo 560 , but twice the price.
Yes, the Yongnuo 560-IV is considerably cheaper, but I already described in my first post in what terms you may be paying a price for a cheaper purchase.
To say that it is the "
same as Yongnuo 560" given all the differences, does not make one bit of sense to me.
Sure, if you know that you are never going to use the unique features of the V6 & RF60 combo and are happy to get inferior usability and don't mind taking chances with reliability then Yongnuo is a viable choice. However, that does not make them the "same".
Originally posted by biz-engineer You can still use the Cactus V6 for remote flashes that support TTL metering but since the Cactus V6 transceiver does not support TTL metering , it's pretty useless.
"
Pretty useless"?
Is a YN 560-TX "pretty useless" as well?
The V6 does everything a YN 560-TX does and much, much more with better usability. How does that make it "
pretty useless"?
Originally posted by biz-engineer So, my recommendation is the following:
(1) buy a complete automatic Pentax flash system that fully support TTL metering (that's expensive but it works)
(2) buy a fully manual set of flashes, the radio trigger is only there as a trigger and you can set the power of remote flashed without having to move but you still need to adjust the power of flash units manually. Yongnuo is the best value for money for manual flash units and accessories.
I disagree with the statement that a P-TTL system "works".
P-TTL can be useful in a small number of scenarios, but typically using manual power control over radio (rather than using optical P-TTL triggering) is a much better idea. P-TTL does not support good control over multiple flashes, introduces a shutter lag, etc. There are some shooters for whom P-TTL flashes are the right solution, but to essentially state that if you only pay the money, all your problems are solved, is inappropriate regarding P-TTL.
I also disagree that "
Yongnuo is the best value for money for manual flash units and accessories.". Yongnuo offers the cheapest products for sure, but in terms of value for money I don't think they beat Cactus or Godox.
First, there are the usability and compatibility issues that reduce the value straight away. Second, the still existing reliability issues may just double the price, for instance, if one out of two units fail.
I forget where that discussion took place but when I recently wrote something like "
With Yongnuo, it is a case of getting what you pay for." someone else objected and said something like "
I don't think that's true." arguing that due to the reliability issues you are getting less than you are paying for. There are many happy Yongnuo users who don't have any issues so it is possible indeed that you may get a copy that does not fail after 100 pops or needs a hot-shoe replacement (just google a bit and you'll find many stories of that kind).
Originally posted by biz-engineer Cactus is presented so that it looks like solution (1) for cheaper than a TTL solutiion
That's simply not true from my experience.
Where did you get that from?
Originally posted by biz-engineer I purchased the Cactus RF60 from the review, and I tested all of it, and I was clearly disappointed.
Disappointed by what?
Everything I described in the review, the RF60 can do.
It seems you've read something into the review that I did not write and believed the RF60 is a P-TTL flash. I don't know where else the disappointment may come from.
Originally posted by biz-engineer The RF60 review on PF is misleading.
Pardon?
Where in the review do I ever create the impression that the RF60 is anything else but a manual flash that supports remote power level and zoom control and has some nice and unique additional features like an "HSS sympathy mode"?
There is an
image showing the single pin hot-shoe, the
modes description only talks about manual modes, and
the conclusion discusses why I believe that the lack of P-TTL is not a problem for many shooters.
I seriously cannot believe you are accusing me of misleading people.
FYI, I wrote the RF60 review in February 2014, i.e., it soon will have been two years, and you are the first person ever to suggest that the review is misleading.