Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-12-2016, 08:08 PM   #31
Banned




Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 181
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by macman24054 Quote
andy888 the only way to work in HSS is to have the flash units set to the flash with the Acon trigger set the HSS mode (not in wireless mode). This will cause that flash to act as the controller for other units. The flash with the Acon will NOT contribute to the flash it is only a controller. To get more out put you need at least 3 AF360's of 3 AF540's. The units not attached to the trigger must be set to wireless HSS. The only benefit (and the reason I put them on a 3 light bracket) of having the controller next to the wireless units is to eliminate the possibility of strong ambient causing the wireless units not to fire. I have tried this method with and without modifiers and it has yet to misfire because of the close proximity of all the units. In manual mode HSS will Not work.

edit: Using the flashes in this manner, you has to use flash compensation on the flash units and the camera.
Of course you can't set Manual wireless for Hss. in the slave flash. Pentax flash wouldn't allow it. I set the slave to TTL wireless slave. So that it wold fire HSS.

I use AF360FGZII.

The flash on the radio receiver. I set it wireless master. It contributes and trig the slave flash nearby optically. I don't set it controller wireless. this would not contribute by only trig.

You have the older firmware which only allow Bi-directional optical Wireless trig. I have newer firmware which allow Manual optical Wireless HSS trig too.

acon put this firmware in the website and put them off soon. Because I report loosing remote hand control for shutter function.

---------- Post added 12-12-16 at 08:44 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
We (or at least I) am not challenging your 100% claim for optical triggering.

However, you are also claiming to have a 100% success rate with your radio triggers.

Finally, you are claiming that using one radio receiver only (-> mainly optical triggering) should be much more reliable than using multiple radio receivers (-> purely radio triggering).

All three claims cannot be true at the same time. Do you not see that?

AFAIC, you should not "Shrug" this away, but explain why your statements appear to contradict each other.
This is not contradic. this is miss undertood. 100% is for my test. compare to other brand with receiver for each flash.( which you are stand for) not itself.

And , not "mainly optical". I already point out because "VERY close" so optical would not fail. reliability only fall on the radio. so not that "mainly optical " We know optical mainly (long distance) some times fail. you neglect key point but bring in this for what reason?


Last edited by andy888; 12-12-2016 at 08:55 PM.
12-12-2016, 11:28 PM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 571
QuoteOriginally posted by macman24054 Quote
andy888 the only way to work in HSS is to have the flash units set to the flash with the Acon trigger set the HSS mode (not in wireless mode). This will cause that flash to act as the controller for other units. The flash with the Acon will NOT contribute to the flash it is only a controller
Are you sure? I think what Andy888 is simply saying is that you use the Acon R930 to fire a Pentax Pttl flash in HSS mode and that that flash optically triggers the clustered manual flashes. Why wouldn't the Pttl flash contribute light output? I don't think it is merely a controller.

As to controlling the power output of manual flashes, that could be preset or with triggers depending on the flash.

I don't believe Andy888 first language is English so please give him some slack.

He is contributing to the forum on the Acon triggers that a number of Pentaxians have either bought or are considering.

I have a mix of flash gear including the Acon R930, Cactus V6 I and II, Godox Ving 850s, Pentax FGZ 560s, Nikon SB28s. They all have their uses.
12-13-2016, 01:08 AM   #33
Pentaxian
mcgregni's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 2,597
I'm a little lost with the direction all this is going .... but it seems illogical to talk of operating a P-TTL flash attached to an Acon Radio RX in 'wireless mode', and certainly as a 'controller'. Both these terms and modes apply to the Pentax 'Wireless' system, which is the optical triggering and control method. A flash being controlled by a radio system would normally be operating in its 'normal' (on-camera) mode.


I thought we were talking here about a type of 'dumb optical' triggering with a daisy chain approach .... ie the first flash was fired by the Acon then the others were triggered optically in a line-of-sight chain from starting from the first.... ? The simplest approach here is operate every flash in Manual mode.


The idea of creating a daisy chain of P-TTL flashes being fired from a single P-TTL unit via its 'Wireless Control' mode whilst being triggered by an Acon receiver .... well .... its sounds borderline fanciful ... even if technically feasible it is hardly a cost effective approach, as Manual flashes would provide more 'flash per buck', but also we have no evidence laid out that there would be any effective way to control the light balance and outputs from so many automatic flashes all at once .
12-13-2016, 01:31 AM   #34
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 9,558
QuoteOriginally posted by mcgregni Quote
The idea of creating a daisy chain of P-TTL flashes being fired from a single P-TTL unit via its 'Wireless Control' mode whilst being triggered by an Acon receiver .... well .... its sounds borderline fanciful
I agree, there is always a few ms delay involved with the P-TTL protocol, and I doubt the optical triggering is fast enough to deliver the right amount of light even at t0.5. Also using one flash as a P-TTL HSS controller means that is has no involvement with final exposure, so in effect you will be getting only the output from three flash units, instead of four. Which is a bit of a waste really.

12-13-2016, 01:32 AM   #35
Banned




Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 181
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mcgregni Quote
I'm a little lost with the direction all this is going .... but it seems illogical to talk of operating a P-TTL flash attached to an Acon Radio RX in 'wireless mode', and certainly as a 'controller'. Both these terms and modes apply to the Pentax 'Wireless' system, which is the optical triggering and control method. A flash being controlled by a radio system would normally be operating in its 'normal' (on-camera) mode.


I thought we were talking here about a type of 'dumb optical' triggering with a daisy chain approach .... ie the first flash was fired by the Acon then the others were triggered optically in a line-of-sight chain from starting from the first.... ? The simplest approach here is operate every flash in Manual mode.


The idea of creating a daisy chain of P-TTL flashes being fired from a single P-TTL unit via its 'Wireless Control' mode whilst being triggered by an Acon receiver .... well .... its sounds borderline fanciful ... even if technically feasible it is hardly a cost effective approach, as Manual flashes would provide more 'flash per buck', but also we have no evidence laid out that there would be any effective way to control the light balance and outputs from so many automatic flashes all at once .
You got the point and have reasonable doublt.

---------- Post added 12-13-16 at 01:46 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
I agree, there is always a few ms delay involved with the P-TTL protocol, and I doubt the optical triggering is fast enough to deliver the right amount of light even at t0.5. Also using one flash as a P-TTL HSS controller means that is has no involvement with final exposure, so in effect you will be getting only the output from three flash units, instead of four. Which is a bit of a waste really.
There is control, slave, master option for pentax wirelss optical if you have used that.

I set it to master, this contribute light. waste not.
12-13-2016, 02:43 AM   #36
Pentaxian
mcgregni's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 2,597
QuoteOriginally posted by andy888 Quote
You got the point and have reasonable doublt.

Phew ! I'm relieved you said that ..... I was heading towards a rocky road I thought

---------- Post added 13-12-16 at 10:09 ----------

Look, really ..... surely all this stuff about triggering techniques and technologies is really rather personal ....... I mean personal to the individuals equipment and needs. I actually have had '100% success' with both optical and radio triggering, but I keep well within the limitations of each technique (eg easy line-of-sight for optical, and taking care to be precise with trigger mounting, batteries and the set-up).


What works best will depend on the physical layout of lights and subject, plus the mix of equipment types you own. I recently used a combination for some portraits, working closely, but one flash was placed directly behind another one on a softbox. So I used the RF60 as that rear light, triggered from the V6 on camera, and the RF60 (which had direct line of sight to the two front main lights (one soft box, one umbrella) triggered my 2 Pentax flashes using their 'SL2' optical mode ..... all manual flash exposures of course.


My main concern with the multi-P-TTL approach is really about the fine control over lighting balance. The Pentax metering system is designed to cope with 'wireless lighting ratios' and 'contrast control sync' (the cable equivalent) .... they offer ratio control to balance two off camera flashes plus the on-camera one (a fixed 1/2 of the off-camera balance). So really, adding more lights into this system and trying to control them with P-TTL flash compensations is a leap into the dark .....

Last edited by mcgregni; 12-13-2016 at 02:52 AM.
12-13-2016, 04:04 AM   #37
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 10,097
QuoteOriginally posted by howieb101 Quote
I don't believe Andy888 first language is English so please give him some slack.
I'm all for that.

I also, however, suggest that Andy888 acknowledge his own weaknesses in reading comprehension and writing (with respect to English), and as result stop putting words into the mouths of others or accuse them of being negligent in their reading of his statements.

QuoteOriginally posted by howieb101 Quote
I have a mix of flash gear including the Acon R930, Cactus V6 I and II, Godox Ving 850s, Pentax FGZ 560s, Nikon SB28s. They all have their uses.
Exactly.

They all have their pros and cons, and to the best of my knowledge no one has demonstrated that some of this gear works more reliably than other gear. I suggest that if anyone wants to state something to the contrary they come up with some kind of repeatable demonstration, instead of just words.
12-13-2016, 04:19 AM   #38
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 10,097
QuoteOriginally posted by andy888 Quote
2. I certaintly state this 100% base on my test. Mutiple receiver involved, sorry, I mean other brand.
Ah, thanks for clarifying that you think your triggering method is more reliable than that of another brand.

Which "other brand" is that and how did you come to that conclusion?

QuoteOriginally posted by andy888 Quote
This is not contradic. this is miss undertood.
Please, you have to admit that asking us to infer that you are comparing your Acon triggers to another brand when you write --
QuoteOriginally posted by andy888 Quote
and, ony a pair of R930 to control, so it should much reliable than the other with a reciever at each foot of flash.
-- is a bit much. You did not mention another brand in that sentence and a very natural interpretation of the sentence is that you are comparing triggering methods (one using one receiver, the other using multiple receivers).

QuoteOriginally posted by andy888 Quote
And , not "mainly optical".
I'd say if there is one path of radio triggering and three paths of optical triggering it is justified to call this scenario "mainly optical" in terms of its triggering technique.

QuoteOriginally posted by andy888 Quote
you neglect key point but bring in this for what reason?
I did not neglect a key point. Again, you do not seem to fully understand what I'm writing. That's not a problem. I'm happy to be patient when trying to parse your sentences and I'm also happy to be patient with you understanding what I'm trying to say. However, I'm not very patient when being misquoted and I'm not very patient when being accused of lacking discussion culture. There is just no factual reason for either of this, so I kindly ask you to refrain from doing both.

12-13-2016, 04:50 AM   #39
Banned




Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 181
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Ah, thanks for clarifying that you think your triggering method is more reliable than that of another brand.

Which "other brand" is that and how did you come to that conclusion?


Please, you have to admit that asking us to infer that you are comparing your Acon triggers to another brand when you write --

-- is a bit much. You did not mention another brand in that sentence and a very natural interpretation of the sentence is that you are comparing triggering methods (one using one receiver, the other using multiple receivers).


I'd say if there is one path of radio triggering and three paths of optical triggering it is justified to call this scenario "mainly optical" in terms of its triggering technique.


I did not neglect a key point. Again, you do not seem to fully understand what I'm writing. That's not a problem. I'm happy to be patient when trying to parse your sentences and I'm also happy to be patient with you understanding what I'm trying to say. However, I'm not very patient when being misquoted and I'm not very patient when being accused of lacking discussion culture. There is just no factual reason for either of this, so I kindly ask you to refrain from doing both.

[Which "other brand" is that and how did you come to that conclusion?]

Well, so I should carefully prove that HOW 1 transmitter to 1 receiver reliability is better than to many receiver? by a way that Class A can agree ?

No. I would not do that.

So I kindly ask you also to finish this non sense debate.
12-13-2016, 06:55 AM - 1 Like   #40
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 10,097
QuoteOriginally posted by andy888 Quote
Well, so I should carefully prove that HOW 1 transmitter to 1 receiver reliability is better than to many receiver? by a way that Class A can agree ?
No, not so that I can agree.

Just to support your claims. It is your prerogative to just make same statements without providing any support whatsoever, but don't expect everyone to silently agree with you, if you just make wild claims that fly in the face of the experiences of others.

QuoteOriginally posted by andy888 Quote
So I kindly ask you also to finish this non sense debate.
I did not start any of this.

As usual, you found some way to praise your triggers (this time by explaining a technique that is old as dirt) and made some incorrect statements and wild claims along the way. Some of these statements have been shown to be false already and we now know that you are now not willing to back up your claims. I think that is an improvement over just letting your first post unreplied-to.

I care about the readers of this forum -- they are my fellow Pentaxians who helped me out when I was a newbie -- so I will always challenge incorrect statements or wild claims when I see them. As long as you don't misinform readers of this forum, I'll neither start nor continue a debate with you.

Last edited by Class A; 12-14-2016 at 06:52 AM.
12-13-2016, 08:31 AM   #41
Banned




Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 181
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
No, not so that I can agree.

Just to support your claims. It is your prerogative to just make same statements without providing any support whatsoever, but don't expect everyone to silently agree with you, if you just make wild claims that fly in the face of the experiences of others.


I did not start any of this.

As usual, you found some way to praise your triggers (this time a technique that is old as dirt) and made some incorrect statements and wild claims along the way. Some of these statements have been shown to be false already and we now know that you are now not willing to back up your claims. I think that is an improvement over just letting your first post unreplied-to.

I care about the readers of this forum -- they are my fellow Pentaxians who helped me out when I was a newbie -- so I will always challenge incorrect statements or wild claims when I see them. As long as you don't misinform readers of this forum, I'll neither start nor continue a debate with you.

What make the optical not so good? distance. I make them close enough. they become very reliable.
You use the long distance problem to against my finding.

Second, I use radio to make the long distance work. optical to make near work. you called it "mainly optical". and continue your accuse to this object you set up. "dirt old", "already wrong".

Unless you get out of your self mind and be reasonable and respect fact. I don't think you worth any debate.

Last edited by andy888; 12-13-2016 at 08:39 AM.
12-13-2016, 09:16 AM   #42
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 10,097
QuoteOriginally posted by andy888 Quote
You use the long distance problem to against my finding.
???

Where? When?

???
12-13-2016, 10:10 AM   #43
Banned




Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 181
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
???

Where? When?

???
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
?
this time a technique that is old as dirt) and made some incorrect statements and wild claims along the way. Some of these statements have been shown to be false

Point out what is " some of these " .
12-13-2016, 03:09 PM   #44
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 10,097
QuoteOriginally posted by andy888 Quote
Point out what is " some of these " .
Pardon?

From "...some of these have shown to be wrong..." you gather that I
  1. said optical triggering has problems, and specifically, that
  2. I used "...the long distance problem to against my finding."
?

What is your problem?

Note what I really said regarding optical triggering in the form you use it was:

"We (or at least I) am not challenging your 100% claim for optical triggering.".

That's the opposite of what you claim I had said.

It eludes me as to why you would stray away from facts in this manner.

Last edited by Class A; 12-13-2016 at 03:27 PM.
12-13-2016, 05:13 PM   #45
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 13,233
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
I agree, there is always a few ms delay involved with the P-TTL protocol, and I doubt the optical triggering is fast enough .
I suspect there is more lag in many radio triggers. I note pros in studio workshops telling everyone to operate their controllers at 1/125s even though I'm sure using optical or cable 1/200 or 1/250s wouldn't be a problem. They gave no theoretical reason, seemed to be more their bitter pill of experience.


QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
Also using one flash as a P-TTL HSS controller means that is has no involvement with final exposure, so in effect you will be getting only the output from three flash units, instead of four.
Pentax, Canon and Nikon all let you choose the controller to have no involvement, or to be added to the exposure, it's just a menu item.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
elinchrom, flash, flashes, heads, hss pttl studio, lighting, master, mode, pentax, photo studio, power, pttl, pttl studio flash, radio, receiver, receivers, reliability, result, statement, strobist, studio, test, transmitter, triggers, youtube video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K1 + AF540fgz(I) no AF assist, Hss and PTTL errors (only for me?) sunCrm Pentax K-1 6 06-13-2016 04:44 PM
Wireless Flash Question - How to Make Main Flash Not Part of Exposure? Ron_Man Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 26 11-23-2015 05:03 PM
How to make Pentax-K5 II work with Canon off camera flash units ? Foma2 Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 15 07-22-2015 09:12 PM
Metz 52 PTTL & PTTL HSS Eder Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 5 06-19-2015 08:24 AM
Radio trigger for HSS I don't care about P-TTL just HSS. PTTL not neccesary or wanted MD Optofonik Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 11 05-04-2013 03:59 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:15 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top