Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: What's wrong with this picture...

Subject: [OM] Re: What's wrong with this picture...
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 07:11:41 -0500
Whether 4 channel or 16 channel the thing to be aware of is that there 
is no quality control with respect to range.  They also tend to be very 
directional.  The 4 channel units are strongest to the front and weakest 
to the rear and reach only 2/3 or 1/2 the distance to the front.  Most 
do not reach the 100 foot/30 meter spec although I have one that reaches 
to 150 feet to the front but only about 75 feet to the rear.

The 16 channel unit was advertised as having a 50 meter range which is 
why I bought it.  I've forgotten what my testing revealed but to the 
best of my recollection the replacement unit got to about 125 feet to 
one side and less to other directions.  It's distance pattern was 
directional but different from the 4 channel units.  No doubt any other 
sample would likely be different.  If distance matters you need to test 
each one to know what you've got.

The distance matters very much to me since I shoot with auxiliary studio 
flashes setup in large function halls.  As long as I've got about 75 
feet I'm in pretty good shape.  Of course, if all you're doing is 
shooting in a studio any of them will work as long as they're not 
clearly defective as was my first 16 channel sample.  Make sure to test 
for repeated firing consistency as well.  That first 16 channel sample 
worked from over 100 feet on the first time then wouldn't work at 
anything more than about 10 feet for a while and sometimes wouldn't fire 
at all.

Finally, I think the number of channels is really immaterial.  If you 
shoot at a large hotel and you use Pocket Wizards you might find that 
another photographer is there with a Pocket Wizard in another room and 
need to change channels to avoid interference.  Or you might be shooting 
in another room yourself and need to change channels so the lights set 
up on the dance floor aren't goiong off all the time when they're not 
needed.  But chances are you're not going to run into another photog 
using these same units and even if you do 4 channels is plenty.

Chuck Norcutt


Wayne Culberson wrote:

> As always, I probably should have asked here first before ordering. I just 
> assumed the 16 channel ones would be quite a bit better.
> Wayne
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:50 PM
> Subject: [OM] Re: What's wrong with this picture...
> 
> 
> 
>>I recently bought one of these 16 channel radio slaves from another
>>seller in China, primarily to get the PC connection on the back for
>>easier use with portable flashes and also to see if the range was any
>>better than the 4 channel units I already have.
>>
>>The first unit was defective in that it was very erratic with respect to
>>range.  It might work perfectly fine from 50 feet away one time and not
>>from 10 feet the next.  The replacement works much better but none that
>>I have (now on my 5th unit) meet the highly optimistic range assertions.
>> The seller happily replaced the unit but I had to pay return shipping
>>to China.  I'd buy another one of these if I needed the PC connection
>>but otherwise I'd stay with the 4 channel stuff since it's cheaper and
>>reaches just as far.  And you can't mix them.  They're not frequency
>>compatible.
>>
>>Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>Wayne Culberson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was in the market yesterday for a 77mm cir. polarizer yesterday, and I
>>>looked at those. I probably should have gone for it, but ended up 
>>>ordering
>>>this slightly used Tiffen one instead, # 300056784599. It's not in the 
>>>same
>>>league, I know.
>>>However, I did try ordering a different cheaper item from a Hong Kong
>>>seller, # 110064204636.
>>>Everyone has to get burned sometime on that site, so I figure I may as 
>>>well
>>>get my turn in.
>>>Wayne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sorry, not asking you to evaluate an image.
>>>>
>>>>Here's an oboy auction for a Hoya 77mm circular polarizer.  Near the top
>>>>of the line.  Seller is "besteastern" in HK, has been around for 2
>>>>years, has 7,000 sales and 99.6% positive feedback rating.  Pretty
>>>>impressive actually.  And at only $66.95 is a great deal.  Or is it?
>>>><http://cgi.ebay.com/HOYA-77mm-PRO1-DIGITAL-Circular-Polarizer-Filter-DMC_W0QQitemZ290057441302QQihZ019QQcategoryZ15217QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>>>>
>>>>Now, here's the B&H ad for the same product.
>>>><http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=391185&is=REG&addedTroughType=search>
>>>>Note that the price at $194.95 is *** 3 times as much ***.
>>>>
>>>>Is this one of those; "If it sounds too good to be true then... "  If
>>>>so, what's the catch?  Counterfeit merchandise?  If so, why so many
>>>>happy customers.  They can't tell the difference?  Real merchandise
>>>>slipped out the back door?  Stolen merchandise?
>>>>
>>>>Comments please.
>>>>
>>>>Chuck Norcutt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>==============================================
>>>>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>==============================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>==============================================
>>>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>==============================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>============================================== 
> 
> 
> 
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
> 
> 


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz