No PC sync on Canon 6D? No problem!
June 24, 2013 2:47 PM   Subscribe

What are your best workarounds for the lack of a PC sync port on the Canon 6D? And, additionally, I'd love to hear your experiences with the 6D vs the 5D MK III.
posted by nevercalm to Media & Arts (13 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
Use radio triggers. E.g. Pocket wizards or knockoffs like Cactus triggers.
posted by primethyme at 3:03 PM on June 24, 2013


I use the Cactus triggers on a Rebel. They've got a 1/8" output and come with PC adapter cables. They're pretty decent for the price, although there's no mistaking them for a Pocket Wizard.
posted by echo target at 3:07 PM on June 24, 2013


Best answer: Paul C Buff has good triggers at a good price. CyberSync. Very robust, I've never had a misfire.
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:42 PM on June 24, 2013


Response by poster: So I guess the question is does the 6D plus the expense of the wireless still leave the 6D looking like a good deal? The reviews I've read mostly bemoan what the 6D lacks vs the 5D, but none of that really had much bearing on what I'm shooting. Can anyone chime in on having tried both, pros and cons?
posted by nevercalm at 5:05 PM on June 24, 2013


Best answer: I think the big question here is why aren't you considering wireless triggering. Once you go there, you probably won't look back.

That aside, if the 6D doesn't have a PC sync port, companies do sell a pc sync hot shoe adapter.

I own a 5d Mk3 and love it. Best camera for everything but sports photography. From what I read from the comparisons, the 6D is right up there, with a significant price reduction. I also use the CyberSync, but if you're not using Buff products I'd take a long look at PocketWizard.
posted by phaedon at 5:19 PM on June 24, 2013


Response by poster: I'm definitely considering it, I'm just trying to figure the total cost of the 6D plus wireless triggering and hot shoe adapter vs the 5D MKIII and whether it's worth all that to save myself the couple hundred bucks, at that point. I mainly shoot still stuff in the studio or nightscapes, so I'm not too worried about that trigger speed or FPS. And the comparisons do really seem like they rank up there. I just don't want to buy the 6D and regret it in a few months, you know?

But based on this I think I'm leaning towards the wireless and the 6D. By no means should anyone not chime in, but thanks everyone for your answers so far.
posted by nevercalm at 5:43 PM on June 24, 2013


Wireless triggering is great, but if you're not interested in making that kind of investment yet, based on what you shoot, you could probably get away with using a hotshoe adapter and a long PC sync cord. Also, if you use E-TTL, you need to make sure that you get wireless transmitters/receivers that support it.

What kind of lights are you triggering? Cactus triggers are great for the price, but I would never trust them in any sort of setting where I need them to be reliable and they don't support E-TTL. (To be honest, I don't even trust them with my Speedlites, but I may be paranoid).

I have never had a problem using Cybersyncs with Speedlites, but they also do not support E-TTL.
posted by inertia at 8:16 AM on June 25, 2013


Response by poster: As of right now I'm using a couple of oldish monolights. I know people go wild over strobist and the whole handheld/off camera flash thing, but give me stands and lights and all that any day. I'm a lighting guy though, so I suppose it's natural.
posted by nevercalm at 6:36 AM on June 26, 2013


Best answer: I use wireless triggers and battery packs for my strobes in the studio because having cords draped everywhere makes me insane. There's a freedom in not having to worry about me or the talent tripping over extension cords and possibly pulling down stands (or using up another fifty feet of gaff tape), and just being able to move stuff anywhere on a whim.

Still, if you're super set in your ways and really don't mind the drapey wires, get on over to Flash Zebra and pick up a camera hot shoe -> pc adapter.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:56 AM on June 26, 2013


Best answer: Another super chintzy way of dealing with no PC and wanting to trigger monolights in-studio is to put a speedlite on your camera (or if it has a built in flash), put it on its absolute lowest setting, make sure it doesn't pre-flash then also cover it up with a deep red gel and set all your monolights to slave. The tiny red flash won't affect your shot but the monolights should still pick it up and trigger.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:00 AM on June 26, 2013


Can anyone chime in on having tried both, pros and cons? ... I just don't want to buy the 6D and regret it in a few months, you know?

I've shot both cameras, and I own a 6D. No regrets here. As you've indicated, this comparison (5D3 vs 6D) hinges largely on what you shoot as an individual photographer. For me, shooting mostly portraits and landscapes, the 6D is perfectly adequate and I'm not inclined to upgrade to the 5D.

There are a few minor things. Like in HDR mode, the 5D captures Raw while the 6D only saves JPG. But that's so minor, and there are so many workarounds once you learn the camera, that it doesn't faze me. I'd much rather invest the price difference in glass. Upgrading to a full-frame sensor was worth the expense, but I don't need to upgrade for features. I'm just not that type of shooter.

If you mostly shoot stills in the studio and landscapes, then my impression is the same would probably be true for you. In part, what helped me was expanding the decision frame: is it worth spending my money on the 1D? Because if I don't need the advantages of the 1D over the 6D, then do I really need the fewer advantages of the 5D?
posted by cribcage at 10:59 AM on June 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


I have to say, I don't love my 5dMKIII. I shot maybe 30,000 pictures with my 5DMKII, and I don't like the results as much with the III. The high ISO image quality is amazing, but if you're shooting in a studio with lights, that won't be a selling point--probably same goes for the better focusing, which is much better for sports, not studio work.

I just came back from a vacation where I shot with my MKIII and my friend's 6D. The MKIII (and MKII) have better controls on the back and feel better in your hand, but the 6D is more than capable of fantastic shots, and has the nifty wireless feature.

If I could do it all again, I'd skip my MKIII purchase and get a 6D (or another MKII). I still have my MKII as my second body.

Also: another vote in favor of the Paul C Buff Cybersyncs. I use his Einsteins as my monolights, and using them with Cybersyncs and the Cyber Commander controller is fantastic. I also use off camera speedlites with either just a receiver plugged direct into a 580EXII, or into a hotshoe, in the case of my 430EXII.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 11:29 AM on July 9, 2013


For me, the 6D's WiFi is like the iPhone's Siri. Both are great ideas, but they'll need a couple of generations to develop into usefulness. I played with the WiFi feature a bit and then never turned it on again. On the other hand, I keep the GPS always on. It's invaluable. I don't understand why some photographers are snobbish about GPS or why Canon couldn't fit it into the 5D.
posted by cribcage at 11:52 AM on July 9, 2013


« Older Can I leave my deck unstained?   |   Why Write for x Hours Every Day? What Then? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.