PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

FM Forums \| Lighting & Studio Techniques \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2009 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

ishootsports3
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

I have another thread going about the JRX's, but figured id consolidate to a poll

other...what?
cybercync-why over the jrx
jrx same question

Sep 22, 2009 at 12:28 AM

pcunite
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

CyberSync:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=748095

Sep 25, 2009 at 09:02 PM

dazey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

The cybersyncs have been more reliable than the poverty wizards but they have let me down big time on a shoot (suspected interference) so I would not invest again. I dont think they are in the same league reliability wise as PW but PW have their own problems in size and cost. The cybersync are also slow frame rate (at least the early ones i have). The next ones I am looking at are the profoto as although I will probably have no air profoto units for a while my studio units are profoto and their transmitters look good on range and reliability (but I have not tested them).
If I was shooting weddings or any other photography where I had to rely on the triggers, I would buy PW. I would not trust my cybersync for a wedding if my shooting depended on them.

Sep 25, 2009 at 11:54 PM

Paul Buff
Offline
Account Locked

p.1 #4 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

CyberSync was not conceived as a replacement to PW or anything else. They were designed for studio flash, which is not normally used at motor drive rates, thus the original firing rate was set at 3 FPS. But many customers wanted to use them with Speedlights and wanted to shoot at faster rates, so shortly after they were introduced we upped the triggering rate to about 13FPS, and came up with solutions and provisions to fire most speedlights and cameras.

We have not had any reports of interference, though I have seen many customer issues on the forums about interference from certain speedlights reducing the useful range of PW to around ten feet. I can't confirm these reports.

Sep 26, 2009 at 02:44 AM

Dave Good
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

CyberSyncs here; they just work.

Dave

Sep 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM

blackfeather
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

...I've used Cybersync's at weddings and events...never fail. The recievers turn themselves off after about an hour of non-use. They are small and sturdy.

Sep 26, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Matt Philbin
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

This may be a rookie question, but can Cybersync's be connected to Canon flashes? Or is this just for more advanced lighting systyems? Thanks.

Sep 26, 2009 at 12:06 PM

kenyee
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

Matt: cybersync's will connect to your pc sync port like most wireless triggers. They just fire a dumb "fire now" signal when you camera tells it to...
I've heard lots of good reports on cybersync reliability. Dazey's comment is one of the rare ones...

Sep 26, 2009 at 01:57 PM

Matt Philbin
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

Thanks! I'll check them out on the AB site... Looks like a slightly cheaper alternative to PW's for a casual user.

Sep 26, 2009 at 02:09 PM

Future Man
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

I have an AB800 and a Nikon SB28. Looking to buy an SB600 soon.

I'm thinking of going with JRX system because of the ability to change the power level right from the transceiver on the camera.

Curious why most in here have gone with the CyberSyncs over the JRX? Looks like a CST+CSRB is $130, while the JRX Studio kit is $140 with the ability to remotely control power level.

$10 for that feature seems like it's worth it over the CyberSyncs. Any thoughts?

Sep 26, 2009 at 02:24 PM

kenyee
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

futureman: because the Cybersyncs have been around a lot longer (years old). The JrX is basically a one month old product. That said, I have some JrX studios coming in next week so I can see how good they are...

Sep 26, 2009 at 03:54 PM

jerrykur
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

PW II+ are the gold standard for a good reason. They just work and they are integrated with a lot of devices (meters, etc.)

Sep 27, 2009 at 03:40 PM

ardeeb
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

Just recieve my JrX recently. Tested it outside and man!! this thing is the best..

i was like 400-500 ft away from my friend and still firing..

my rate:

durability 10/10
reliability 10/10
price 10/10

all in all... happy with the purchase..

Edited on Sep 27, 2009 at 09:20 PM · View previous versions

Sep 27, 2009 at 09:05 PM

user954
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

PW might be the "gold standard" but that's only IMO because they have been around for so much longer then any other wireless trigger. Give it time and soon enough, there will be no standard. I believe the price has dropped a nice amount that a majority of people can afford them, but when ABs introduced the Cybersyncs people went crazy over them because they simply work, look great and were a lot smaller compared to the PWs. The poll speaks for itself.

Sep 27, 2009 at 09:07 PM

K_Strecker
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

I say all this as fact, I have no agenda or argument with anything stated above

user954 is right in the sense that it depends on how you define "golden standard"

If you define it as "what's used the most" then the Canon Rebel or Nikon D40 range of cameras is the golden standard of the DSLR world

But, if you define it by features offered, use by high-end pros, availability worldwide, availability of backups, rentability and the like . . .

than Pocket Wizard still reigns supreme and will continue to do so for QUITE some time.

Even the most basic of pocket wizards, the PlusII, is a transceiver. No other brand of trigger offers this capability. The PlusII, being a transceiver, can also auto-relay when used to fire a remote camera . . . no other trigger on the market can do this with 1 unit on the remote camera.

Then add in their upper-level products. The MultiMAXX, nothing can touch it. No one else offers private channels so you're GUARANTEED to never have someone else firing your strobes in crowded public venues.

No one else offers remote-pre-release control for remote camera firing either. Or the advanced timing features, or the quad-zones, or 32 different channels for that matter. Then there's remote trigger confirmation, and plenty of other niceties.

It's probably true that 99% of cybersync users will never need these features. That's why it's great that they have an option.

But, until there's another brand of trigger is seen out on the field of remotely-fired cameras at the olympics . . . Pocket wizard will still be top dog among working photographers.

In my own personal experience, over 2.5 years of freelance assisting, is that having worked for 100+ pros from all over the country only 3 use something non-pocketwziards, 2 of those use the old Quantum slave system, and 1 used cybrsyncs in anticipation of the Cybersync Commander . . .

This poll certainly speaks for it's self, but it's not the only one that's talking. I'm not coming in here with a holier-than-thou mentality, just a different perspective

Sep 27, 2009 at 11:05 PM

E-Vener
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

I use Pocketwizard MultiMAX's. Been doign a little experimenting with with the new TTcontrol system and it has worked fine for me. I wish Canon would clean up their act about the radio noise some (not all) of the 580 EX IIs emit but until then I dangle the TT5Flex units from Canon OC-E3 cables.

PW might be the "gold standard" but that's only IMO because they have been around for so much longer then any other wireless trigger.

Long before LPADesign started making Pocketwizards, and before that at the professional level (As in Sports Illustrated pro level) there wasthe LPA Design Flashwizard.

But going back to the beginning there was the Hawk triggering system (late 1970s) then there was the GVI Radio Slave (I still have a set somewhere), then GVI became part of Quantum and these morphed into the Quantum Radio Slave II which eventually evolved into the RadioSlave IV - all three of which were not always reliable and had a big drawback in that they had only 4 frequencies and if you needed to add to your set you need to make sure that you found another receiver hard coded for the frequency (A/B/C/D) of your existing ones. asd to reliability, my Radio Slave II and IV Receivers kept going out of tune with the transmitter. That was a real pain as I am one of those photographers who believe the bottom line is delivering pictures, not excuses. Quantum eventually came up with the Freewire X but by that time (mid 1990s) I was already using my first set of Pocketwizards , the original 16 channel classics (which still can work with the latest Pocketwizards). Once I switched to Pocketwizards , I stopped having reliability problems. Since then I have added a set of Pocketwizard MAX and MultiMAX transceivers to my kit. I haven't updated these since 2001.

Also in the early 1990s there was a fine set of remote triggers made by Venca.

More recently there are the Elinchrom EL-Skyport system , the Cybersyncs from Paul C. Buff, and a slew of cheap and unreliable short range radio triggers sold through eBay stores.

The Pocketwizard MultiMAX transceivers are the "gold standard" for me because they just work, and work consistently even in the worst of circumstances - even in industrial environments where there is a lot of ambient radio noise.

My assistant and I once did a week of shared studio shooting in a radio unfriendly location where there were three photographers working constantly with our sets literally side by literally side by side and we all were using Pocketwizards. Actually only two of us started out with our Pocketwizard set ups ( Our set alone had 4 receivers/transceivers deployed on four different packs on my set and two transmitters) and by noon the first day the third photographer had sent her assistant out to buy some Pocketwizards to replace her Radio Slaves.

I've used LPA Design Pocketwizards to trigger lights and and remote cameras and so far they have been infallible. That is why they are the "gold standard". If you are looking for that kind of reliability, range versatility and features then go with the Pocketwizard MultiMAX transceivers.

Edited on Oct 25, 2009 at 01:51 PM · View previous versions

Sep 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Shutterslam
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

PW's may be the self proclaimed gold standard of radio triggers, but how high of a standard do you need to keep to offer the only function the vast majority of us will ever need ("fire now").

Couple that with the size, # of channels, and most importantly the COST, incredible customer service, upgrade policies...well I think you get my point...I drank the Cybersync koolaid and I'm happy to pass some around (seeing as I saved all that money).

They just work.

Sep 28, 2009 at 12:55 PM

E-Vener
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

Professional photographers and more importantly professional rental agencies are the ones who made Pocketwizards the gold standard for radio triggers, it isn't a "self proclaimed " piece of hype.

I haven't tried the CyberSyncs yet, I'm waiting for the Cyber Commanders. Hopefully they will prove as reliable over the long run as Pocketwizards have proven themselves.

Sep 28, 2009 at 01:09 PM

Paul Buff
Offline
Account Locked

p.1 #19 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

I know the principals at LPA (PW) quite well. They have worked very hard to secure the position they hold in the industry.

Sep 28, 2009 at 05:55 PM

pcunite
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

Future Man wrote:
Curious why most in here have gone with the CyberSyncs over the JRX? Looks like a CST+CSRB is $130, while the JRX Studio kit is $140 with the ability to remotely control power level. $10 for that feature seems like it's worth it over the CyberSyncs. Any thoughts?

Because remote controlling your power levels, while sounding nice on a product sheet, is not that helpful in certain situations. Before I went with CyberSync I was used to using five 580EX II units and could easily change the power level from the master flash. The problem is that without an elaborate master interface and somehow identifying slaves you forget real quick which flash is which. Also you will want to meter the flash output most of the time anyway after a change which means walking over to the flash anyway.

Sep 28, 2009 at 09:03 PM

maczilla
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #21 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

Dear Friends

I bought my PocketWizard Plus transceiver and receiver back in 2004. I wasn't impressed with the build quality, especially after I left the receiver on after a shoot and killed the unit by doing so. PocketWizard repaired it under warranty, but do you know how I found out the unit was dead? I went to a location shoot, set up, and it wouldn't work.

I was terribly embarrassed by my lack of preparedness and professionalism. I had to leave the shoot and go home to fetch a sync cord, and traffic was just awful. By the time I arrived back at the shoot, I was a nervous wreck.

With Paul's remotes, don't worry about turning them off. You can't. They take care of themselves. And the tiny CyberSync transmitter makes my PocketWizard Plus look like a cinder block.

PocketWizard's new MiniTT1 looks like a huge improvement over the Plus, but to control each light, if my understanding is correct, you need a US$220 FlexTT5 for each light. Paul's comparable receivers cost US$90 for current strobes and, unless pricing has changed, will cost US$30 for future models of his lights.

--Jaddie

Edited on Sep 29, 2009 at 12:33 AM · View previous versions

Sep 28, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Paul Buff
Offline
Account Locked

p.1 #22 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

Jaddie,

Correct.

Sep 28, 2009 at 11:34 PM

lafashionphoto
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #23 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

I just got recently started using Pauls cyber sync recievers. Love them soo much. Simple, easy to use, no mis-fires. I had used pocket wizards..then the skyports...had 3 skyport transmitters go bad (there is a design flaw) And now I have Paul's products and I love love love em. Good price point, excellent product.

Sep 29, 2009 at 04:38 AM

ishootsports3
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #24 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

I think im leaning to the Cyber sync's due to size and proven effectiveness
but i have a month to think about it as i am being loaned a set of pw for a while...

Sep 30, 2009 at 05:34 AM

bobbyz
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #25 · PW vs Cyber synce vs JRX's

Happy CyberSync user here. Waiting for the new CC otherwise I will probably move to Jrx.

I agree old PW are the gold standard. Nice thing is one can rent them if you need more units or a replacement. And offer lot more features like already mentioned.

Sep 30, 2009 at 03:02 PM


FM Forums \| Lighting & Studio Techniques \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end