# Nikon CLS or Pocket Wizards?



## jackieclayton (Jan 24, 2010)

which do you prefer using and why do you prefer using it?  I know this is like a "Canon vs Nikon" type of question and I'm not looking for a debate or anything... just want to know how many out there use what and why it works best for them?!  Thanks!


----------



## Phranquey (Jan 24, 2010)

For macro, I use CLS since the flash is close enough to use a cord, but for wireless I use Cybersync.  Cheaper than PW, and just as reliable, just don't have the same range....but if I ever _need_ 1600' I'll pick up a pair.  Plus, the Cybersync transmitter is much smaller on top of the camera than a PW...


----------



## Derrel (Jan 24, 2010)

I use Pocket Wizard since it is compatible with NON-Nikon flashes as well as monolights and studio pack-and-head systems. A few years ago I was shooting newspaper sports indoors using balcony-mounted strobes which are NOT Nikon CLS-compatible, so for me, Pocket Wizards were the ones I decided to buy--but that was over five years ago, and kind of before this new wave of inexpensive options of various Chinese-made remote triggers became available. Years ago, the choice of Pocket Wizards was pretty simple and clear, but in today's market, and with the advances Nikon has made with the CLS system, the choice is no so clear cut,and I am sure the Pocket Wizard company is really hatin' all these inexpensive offshore made cheap products.


----------



## epp_b (Jan 24, 2010)

I've only experimented with CLS once in a store, but I think I can confidently say I prefer the Cybersyncs that I have.  They have a great range, 100% reliability indoors-and-out, and no line-of-sight requirement.  Plus, on my D40, I can shoot all the way up to 1/3200th! 



> ...and I am sure the Pocket Wizard company is really hatin' all these inexpensive offshore made cheap products.


Doubtful.  PW's can do iTTL wirelessly with 100% reliability from a mile away.

CLS reportedly works like crap in any reasonable amount of outdoor light, has a short range, and requires the flashes to be able to physically "see" the camera.  Too bad, because the best places to put a flash off-camera are usually out of sight.

Cybersyncs have a range of a few hundred feet and 100% reliability, but they don't do iTTL.  You must set the flash power manually and it cannot be set remotely (well worth the hundreds of dollars in savings to me).

Those crappy Chinese triggers have lousy reliability, a short range and are flimsily-built.  They're fine for experimenting with, but they are by no means a substitute for any pro system.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 25, 2010)

It's not so much line of sight requirement as it is "sight of light". Indoors light bounces all over the place and CLS works around corners, backwards, and in all sorts of ways you wouldn't imagine.

Outdoors... if you're flash is behind you you can give up straight away. It depends entirely what you're going to use it for. So far CLS has been just fine for me, admittedly though I don't do much fancy flashing.


----------



## epp_b (Jan 25, 2010)

^ Mmm... OK, fair enough.  Still, I love my Cybersyncs for their put-the-flash-literally-anywhere-indoors-or-out capability.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 25, 2010)

I use a bunch of promaster flashes via IR triggers and it works great. Used a Pocket wizard in a studio back in OKC and it worked just fine with no issues. I could fire the flashes from 50yds away. The only issue I had was every now and then I had to reset the trigger on the camera. Dont know why but i had to.


----------



## KmH (Jan 25, 2010)

Garbz said:


> It's not so much line of sight requirement as it is "sight of light". Indoors light bounces all over the place and CLS works around corners, backwards, and in all sorts of ways you wouldn't imagine.
> 
> Outdoors... if you're flash is behind you you can give up straight away. It depends entirely what you're going to use it for. So far CLS has been just fine for me, admittedly though I don't do much fancy flashing.


And using a SU-800 gives a stronger signal, so more range and better 'hiding'.

I've made 'reflectors' out of all kinds of things to get hidden speedlights to fire when using CLS. 

I notice that many who pan CLS, don't have much, if any experience with it.

I have used several different iterations of, 





> "Those crappy Chinese triggers have lousy reliability, a short range and are flimsily-built"


 and find, for their cost, they are sufficiently reliable, consistantly have range of well over 100 feet, and are built as sturdy as one can expect for what little money they cost. :thumbup:

They would be fine for most, but not all, retail photographers.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 25, 2010)

I use CLS effectively for my needs.  As Garbz mentioned, light can be controlled.  I have used CLS outdoors with the flashes behind me.  I also like to use my speedlights in manual.  To each he's own and for the particular situation.


----------



## TrumanPhotography (Jun 25, 2010)

It would be a Win / Win deal if Pocketwizard came out with the *Pocket Wizard FlexTT5 Transceiver For Nikon TTL Flashes*






Derrel said:


> I use Pocket Wizard since it is compatible with NON-Nikon flashes as well as monolights and studio pack-and-head systems. A few years ago I was shooting newspaper sports indoors using balcony-mounted strobes which are NOT Nikon CLS-compatible, so for me, Pocket Wizards were the ones I decided to buy--but that was over five years ago, and kind of before this new wave of inexpensive options of various Chinese-made remote triggers became available. Years ago, the choice of Pocket Wizards was pretty simple and clear, but in today's market, and with the advances Nikon has made with the CLS system, the choice is no so clear cut,and I am sure the Pocket Wizard company is really hatin' all these inexpensive offshore made cheap products.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 25, 2010)

jackieclayton said:


> which do you prefer using and why do you prefer using it?  I know this is like a "Canon vs Nikon" type of question and I'm not looking for a debate or anything... just want to know how many out there use what and why it works best for them?!  Thanks!



I prefer using the tool that gets the job done the easiest with the best results.   Most of the time that means pocket wizards.  After 40 years of shooting I'm quite comfortable with manual lighting.  TTL has its advantages and it's place, but for the majority of my shooting I know what look I am striving to achieve and know the lighting requirements to get those results.


----------

