# 580EX II Faulty by Design?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 17, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/580ex-ii-faulty-by-design/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/580ex-ii-faulty-by-design/"></a></div>
<p><strong>Why do you blow up so much 580EX II?</strong>

There has been a lot of people writing in over the years about their 580EX II’s constantly failing. People became more vocal around the time the PocketWizard FlexTT5 and MiniTT1 launched. Ã‚Â Below is preliminary research done by PocketWizard on the 580EX II and the problems it has.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Background

</strong>Since the launch of its PocketWizard MiniTT1 and FlexTT5 models in early 2009, LPA Design (A.K.A.PocketWizard) has been receiving periodic calls and reports from customers who are using their CanonÃ‚Â 580EX II flashes with the PocketWizard ControlTL radios and expressing concern that perhaps their flashÃ‚Â may have been damaged by using a PocketWizard radio trigger with it.Ã‚Â As of the time of this report (Jan, 2011), there are about 120Ã¢â‚¬Â140 PocketWizard customers who haveÃ‚Â reported having one or more 580EX II flashes damaged with common symptoms over the past 18+Ã‚Â months.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/files/580EXII.pdf">Read the full PDF </a>(Very technical)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/pocketwizards/discuss/72157626061368078/">Flickr Discussion</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.pocketwizard.com/">Visit PocketWizard</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional?pageKeyCode=contactUsLanding">Assertively Speak to Canon</a></p>
<p><em>thanks Rui</em></p>
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</p>
```


----------



## contrastny (Feb 17, 2011)

This gives me a lot to think about as I'm trying to decide which flash unit to get. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Feb 17, 2011)

The paper is an interesting read -- a very thorough examination of the cause of the problem, and their conclusions seem plausible. 
They mention that the more recent 430EX II does not have the flaws that together contribute to the problem -- now it would be interesting to find out if Canon did the same design changes to later models of the 580 EX II as well (that is _if_ Canon became aware of the possible issues with the 580 EX II and if _that_ was actually the reason for designing the 430 EX II differently...). But since there is no mentioning of the aspect of manufacturing dates of the affected units, we have to assume that no such design change took place.


----------



## Kim (Feb 17, 2011)

It is most likely the 580EX II is flawed but how come Radio Poppers haven't been reporting these issues? Doesn't they support same functions just different ways of delivering the signal electrical vs. optical


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Feb 17, 2011)

Kim said:


> It is most likely the 580EX II is flawed but how come Radio Poppers haven't been reporting these issues? Doesn't they support same functions just different ways of delivering the signal electrical vs. optical



According to the analysis paper, Pocket Wizards are not mere remote triggers seem to influence the way the flash emits light, which might increase the likelihood of the problem appearing:


> So while PocketWizard products do not appear to cause the failure, through aggressive marketing of remote HSS features of Canonâ€™s flashes we may be accidentally contributing to the rate in which failures happen.



In brief: the many short light bursts produced in HSS mode increase the amount of ozone produced by the flash bulb, which can't escape the flash head because it is weather-sealed. The ozone increases the likelihood of arcing within the flash head, which increases the likelihood of frying an IGBT (a part of the flash's power control electronics). Pocket wizards enable the use of HSS in remote flash use (which is not possible with Canon's optical remote flash system), so people using Pocket Wizards are more likely to use HSS and are therefore more likely to experience the problem.


----------



## Flake (Feb 17, 2011)

Firstly it should be bourne in mind that this report is issued by a company accused by some of it's products damaging their equipment - it is not an unbiased & independant report.

It appears to have fooled some into concluding that the fault lies within the flash head - that is in fact far from the case. What the report does is to report the symptoms of the failure, the components which fail and the way in which they fail. If I connected a television to 30000 volts I could do the same thing - look at the components which failed, and how they failed - some would conclude the failure was as a result of poor design of the television. 

The report fails to address several important issues.
There is no discussion about the potential differences in the E-TTL control of the PW when compared to Canons original (and undisclosed) software.
There is no specific mention of why these failures do no occur with other triggers such as the ST-E2 or even the hotshoe.
There is no attempt to ascertain the time of the arcing in the flash head - for all we know it could well be caused post failure of the IGBT when it dumps a full power load, and have nothing to do with the actual fail state, just another symptom.
If ozone is a real problem (and I'm not convinced it is at these concentrations) then why is it not a problem when the flash is used with other triggers?

The report unfortunately doesn't reach a firm conclusion - just a note that further tests will be carried out.

I have to say that I'm not impressed with Canons flash system, I own the 580 EXII and an ST-E2 I also have a Metz MZ54 5 (latest E-TTL firmware) & a sunpak PZ5000 slave unit. The Metz is probably the best built of all, but lacks the wireless trigger capability.

In the UK canon charge Â£49 for the OC-E3 a remote cable with probably costs around Â£4 to make I would imagine that the 580 EXII is costing them less than Â£40 to make which isn't much. A little more quality in some of the accessory products rather than design to cheapest manufacture is perhaps needed.


----------



## nmount (Feb 17, 2011)

I would like to point out that neither the 580 EX or the 430 EX II is supposed to be water resistant while the 580 EX II is. I would attribute some if not all of the design differences between the flashes to this water resistance, for example a sealed end cap on the 580 EX II where there isn't one on the others. Therefore suggesting that the design between the two was changed due to a faulty design isn't proved by this point.


----------



## Gothmoth (Feb 17, 2011)

> Although LPA Design has been able to identify the symptom of the problem, LPA Design has not been
> able to trace the cause of the problem to our PocketWizard products and we have no knowledge of the
> incidence rates of this problem arising independently without PocketWizard, i.e. some number of 580EX
> II flashes likely fail without PocketWizard ControlTL radios interacting with them.



well i think that would be important to know.

if people without PW reporting this issue too, i would think the 580 EX II is the problem.

if only 0.01% of the 580 EX II that are used without Pocket Wizards have theses problems i think PW will have a problem.

that Pocket Wizards encurage more people to use HSS.... mhm.... i think that a greater percentage of units will be used with HSS and without an PW.
i know 15-20 people with an 580 EX II unit but only three of them have an Pocket Wizard.

anyway i hope to read a statement from canon....


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 17, 2011)

Hello all,

This subject caused me to finally register and say something about this. I recently invested in a brand new system and started from scratch after finally going digital and retire my FD system. I understand that Canon probably looks at their top shelf camera systems more as a marketing tool and reputation builder than as a cash cow. They make their money with little P&S cameras and office supplies. I get that. Even more so should they be interested in working with the people (pros and non pros) who buy their expensive equipment and haul it around town for every one to see who is going to buy a Rebel at Costco.

Their stuff is great and we all have to be grateful that Canon and companies like that (i.e. Nikon) put in the research to maintain this minority market at a pretty high level. That being said I feel they should then try to live up to correcting obvious issues. I am in the market right now for the 580EXII and a 50mm lens. I understand that Canon could really care less and that they won't make much money of these items. But still, both these items have obvious design flaws that I'd like to see corrected. Charge me more but make something available that lives up to the reputation that Canon wants to portrait and maintain in this market segment. Or drop it if it's not worth the effort. But it's not OK to charge us a lot of money (relatively speaking), make us walking advertising and then tell us we're out of luck if some of the stuff fails due to half-baked designs.


----------



## fotoray (Feb 17, 2011)

Amen! I just sent off a note to Canon (see link at top of this page) conveying these same points. If others could also express their views directly to Canon we might as least get their explanation of this 580EX II problem. Their failure to respond would certainly not be a very good marketing strategy, and have the appearance of a cover-up. I have not had problems with my other Canon equipment, and I wouldn't want to pay good money for equipment that has known design flaws - if that the case!


----------



## Gothmoth (Feb 17, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> I understand that Canon could really care less and that they won't make much money of these items. But still, both these items have obvious design flaws that I'd like to see corrected. Charge me more but make something available that lives up to the reputation that Canon wants to portrait and maintain in this market segment. Or drop it if it's not worth the effort. But it's not OK to charge us a lot of money (relatively speaking), make us walking advertising and then tell us we're out of luck if some of the stuff fails due to half-baked designs.



well i wonder what makes you think this is a canon problem and not a PW problem.
as mentioned PW paid for this report and they came to no clear solution. 
PW is pointing in canons direction.. but thatÂ´s only too normal. 

i can only tell you that i have sold over 40 EX 580 II the last two years and i got none back.
so i guess they are still working fine. i use a 580 EX II myself without a problem.

i hope that canon will give a statement.


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 17, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that Canon could really care less and that they won't make much money of these items. But still, both these items have obvious design flaws that I'd like to see corrected. Charge me more but make something available that lives up to the reputation that Canon wants to portrait and maintain in this market segment. Or drop it if it's not worth the effort. But it's not OK to charge us a lot of money (relatively speaking), make us walking advertising and then tell us we're out of luck if some of the stuff fails due to half-baked designs.
> ...




Well, that's a valid point and we don't know anything for sure yet. But in applying a bit of common sense here I am inclined to see this as a Canon problem. I'm not a technician but I found the paper pretty convincing as to the actual location of the problem. And I've also seen quite a bit of anecdotal evidence online that points in that direction. I know, people write all sort of stuff and it may only affect a relatively small number of units. But I've seen quite a few discussions where people complained about "underexposure" and missing "pre flashes" that I guess fit in pretty well with the analysis done by PW.

The most convincing piece of evidence appears to be the fact that a) the design of the 430EXII was different and b) that those units don't fail - with or without PW use. I'm sure there are various kinds of confounding factors here at play that skew the numbers. 

But in the end I can't really think of anything that would cause the speedlights to fail based on the triggering device. But again, I'm no technician. And would something like this stand in a court room? I don't know. But it would for sure leave a funny aftertaste if Canon went that route instead of just accepting the -somewhat- obvious. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. I'll wait before I make a purchase now.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 17, 2011)

I've been using three 580 EX II's without a PW for years with no issues. The PW's though have had plenty of problems, and require a circuit change in the 580 EX II to reduce RF and increase the range slightly, or a wierd wrap around device.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 17, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> The most convincing piece of evidence appears to be the fact that a) the design of the 430EXII was different and b) that those units don't fail - with or without PW use. I'm sure there are various kinds of confounding factors here at play that skew the numbers.



someone above (credit goes to nmount) has already noted that the design of the 430 EX II is bound to be different than the 580 EX II because of their weathersealing requirements.

so ... the most convincing piece of evidence here isn't very compelling at all, actually. I think this is going to need a lot more analysis before anyone jumps to conclusions. I haven't had to slap PW's on my 580 EX II but I notice none of the arcing discussed in the document despite heavy use


----------



## jonmarkphoto (Feb 17, 2011)

I would like to point out my personal experience in this issue.

I have been using Radiopoppers for over a year now without issue ( both JRx and PX systems ) , they have never damaged my flashes and my flashes had never had any functionality issues... until recently.

A friend bought into the new Pocketwizard flex system. We tried using it while he was assisting me at a wedding. For the first hour it was fine... and then, my 580EX II started going haywire and doing full power dumps everywhere I went. I eventually had to give up and resort to borrowing a flash from another friend and finishing the day with my Radiopoppers. My flash was pooched, had to send it in to CPS to get it repaired. $130 with my discount.

A week later, my friend was playing around with them more, and had been in conversation with pocketwizard to work out the interference issues and get the PW "socks" sent to him. He got the socks, and after 2 days of use, his 580 EX I flash blew up and started doing the same thing. He bought a new 580 EXII, and within 2 weeks of purchase, it also "blew up" and would only do full power dumps, even when not connected to the pocketwizards. Canon replaced this flash as a manufacturers defect under the warranty.

When my friend contacted Pocketwizard about his concerns about breaking the flashes, who up to this point had been very responsive to his emails regarding interference and the "socks", they suddenly stopped responding. He has not heard a response since.

We subsequently stopped using the pocketwizards, and I have gone 100% radiopopper JRx. They have given me ZERO flash issues and 100% firing reliability. My Radiopopper PX system, which like the pocketwizards gives E-TTL wireless capability, was bulletproof, and also did not damage the flashes, but I found I was shooting on manual all the time anyways and didn't need the more expensive system, so I sold it.

I am 100% convinced based on my own personal experience with THREE 580EX flashes ( 1 580 EX I, 2 580 EXII ) that the pocketwizards are the issue and that they are not taking responsibility for this situation. I will never deal with them again. Radiopopper has not only been completely reliable, but very communicative and helpful, I would encourage all of you to look in their direction when it comes to Radio based flash triggers.


----------



## motorhead (Feb 17, 2011)

PW should be congratulated for putting so much much effort into this research. Yes of course, it's driven by self-preservation, but they have gone well beyond proving that it's not their own product causing the failures without flinching at the costs involved.

Not all companies are like that, believe me.


----------



## kettch42 (Feb 17, 2011)

Flake said:


> Firstly it should be bourne in mind that this report is issued by a company accused by some of it's products damaging their equipment - it is not an unbiased & independant report.


I agree with you here. But I do not agree with the rest of what you wrote. 



> It appears to have fooled some into concluding that the fault lies within the flash head - that is in fact far from the case. What the report does is to report the symptoms of the failure, the components which fail and the way in which they fail. If I connected a television to 30000 volts I could do the same thing - look at the components which failed, and how they failed - some would conclude the failure was as a result of poor design of the television.


They did more than report the symptoms of failure. They outlined a fairly detailed set of circumstances and design flaws that could be the cause of failure. 
And they did zap the flash with a 11-12kV (although not 30kV) to test for ESD issues, and there was no effect (page 16). Not sure what you're saying here. 



> There is no discussion about the potential differences in the E-TTL control of the PW when compared to Canons original (and undisclosed) software.


They did discuss the differences in HSS between PW and Canon, which is when most failures occur (page 14). 



> There is no specific mention of why these failures do no occur with other triggers such as the ST-E2 or even the hotshoe.


The information is there... the failures occur while using a PW and when not using PW, ie hotshoe (I'll find a quote if you want). The problem is pinpointed to arcing, partly due to ozone formation. So whether the flash is in a hotshoe or on a PW, the problem remains the same.



> There is no attempt to ascertain the time of the arcing in the flash head - for all we know it could well be caused post failure of the IGBT when it dumps a full power load, and have nothing to do with the actual fail state, just another symptom.


You must have missed pages 7-8. 



> If ozone is a real problem (and I'm not convinced it is at these concentrations) then why is it not a problem when the flash is used with other triggers?


Arcing is the real problem. The arcing is caused by ozone lowering the dialectric strength of the air, and also by the position of the tube in relation to the backplane. The closer the tube is, the more likely the arc will happen. Note that the 430ex had the tube further from the back.



> The report unfortunately doesn't reach a firm conclusion - just a note that further tests will be carried out.


It seemed fairly firm to me. Not unbiased truth, but an excellent argument.


----------



## kettch42 (Feb 17, 2011)

kubelik said:


> someone above (credit goes to nmount) has already noted that the design of the 430 EX II is bound to be different than the 580 EX II because of their weathersealing requirements.
> 
> so ... the most convincing piece of evidence here isn't very compelling at all, actually. I think this is going to need a lot more analysis before anyone jumps to conclusions. I haven't had to slap PW's on my 580 EX II but I notice none of the arcing discussed in the document despite heavy use



That wasn't evidence, it was a conclusion. The evidence is in the arcing, the ozone, and the fried IGBT. You (and nmount) are right that the difference in design between the 430EXII and the 580EXII does not mean that Canon knew abut the problem and is covering up a mistake. But the evidence still points to a faulty design.


----------



## DetlevCM (Feb 17, 2011)

A design change is not admission of guilt with respect to a "design error" before.

Design changes can occur for various reasons - it could even be a money saving feature.

Also, I'd highly doubt that Canon would sell a flash for years that does not work to spec on Canon equipment.
As some people have pointed out too, we would see a lot of reports of failed flashes if that were the case.

As Pocketwizards are a third party add-on and the flashes work according to spec on Canon bodies, maybe they should consider that they could be at fault.
Also, as other people have pointed out, if Pocketwizards enable the use of the Flash unit outside of Canon specifications you cannot really blame Canon.

-> The flash was designed for a certain "type of use" with Canon kit - it holds up to spec under those conditions, anything else is just an extra which is desirable but not guaranteed by the manufacturer. On this note, I believe all third party lenses carry a disclaimer just in case they break the camera exactly for this reason - it should work, but it cannot be guaranteed to be safe, even though it generally is.


----------



## fotoray (Feb 17, 2011)

I sent Canon Professional Services a query and got following prompt (expected?) response:

Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon
customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you.

There are no problems when using Canon flashes with Canon cameras. If 
you add a third party product between a Canon camera and a Canon flash 
and the combination fails, then the fault in design lies within the 
third party product. Canon does not collaborate with third party 
manufacturers. It is up to the third party manufacturer to make a 
product that does not inhibit the functionality of the Canon product. 
Perhaps you should contact the manufacturer of the third party device 
that you intend to use.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please let us know if we can
be of any further assistance.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Sincerely,

Charles
Technical Support Representative

Special Note: Certain issues are very difficult to resolve via email. If
your question remains unanswered after you have received this email, you
may call our special toll-free number for email customers with 
unresolved issues and speak to a technician by dialing 1-866-261-9362, 
Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 midnight ET, and Saturday 10:00 a.m. -
8:00 p.m. ET (excluding holidays).

If you prefer to continue to communicate via email, reply to this 
message and we will respond as quickly as possible.


----------



## kettch42 (Feb 17, 2011)

jonmarkphoto said:


> I am 100% convinced based on my own personal experience with THREE 580EX flashes ( 1 580 EX I, 2 580 EXII ) that the pocketwizards are the issue and that they are not taking responsibility for this situation. I will never deal with them again. Radiopopper has not only been completely reliability, but very communicative and helpful, I would encourage all of you to look in their direction when it comes to Radio based flash triggers.



Were you using HSS with the PW's? This is a functionality that Radiopoppers do not have, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## emtp563 (Feb 17, 2011)

My original 580 EX II failed with a blown flash tube. After sending it to CPS 5 times for repair, they finally gave me a new "refurbished" 580 EX II. I EXCLUSIVELY use HSS without any third-party intermediary device. I'm not sure I can fault Canon on the first flash blowing out because I probably shot 10,000 frames on HSS- I think it was just it's time. My issue is not the flash tube or circuitry, but the mounting mechanism. My flash frequently loses communication with the body, exclusively when I'm using a battery pack (a Canon CP-E4), but that's another issue for another thread.

My point is, my 580 EX's perform as expected without PW's.


----------



## kettch42 (Feb 17, 2011)

If Pocketwizard wants to prove their innocence and convince everyone that it's not their fault, they need to prove that these failures happen at the same rate when using HSS on other systems as the rate it happens on their own. 

They pointed out that they have no way of determining if the problem is only theirs or if it happens with other systems. So they tried their hardest to find out why the problem occurs and then point out that the reason has nothing to do with specifically their system.


----------



## jonmarkphoto (Feb 17, 2011)

kettch42 said:


> jonmarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I am 100% convinced based on my own personal experience with THREE 580EX flashes ( 1 580 EX I, 2 580 EXII ) that the pocketwizards are the issue and that they are not taking responsibility for this situation. I will never deal with them again. Radiopopper has not only been completely reliability, but very communicative and helpful, I would encourage all of you to look in their direction when it comes to Radio based flash triggers.
> ...



Yes I used HSS numerous times with the Radiopoppers and never experienced an issue. The Radiopoppers ( PX units ) DO have this feature, as they simply piggyback on the existing Canon Infrared system. My understanding is that Pocketwizards deliver this feature in a different way that they call "Hypersync" which is supposed to give you high speed syncing without the significant power loss of traditional HSS which exists in the Canon OEM system ( ST-E2 or 580EX (II) as master flash )


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 18, 2011)

I would think that the higher power output of the 580 EX II requires the best possible cooling. PW needs those shields over the flash so their faulty control unit will work further than 30 ft away. 

Heat destroys electronics, and is likely taking its toll.

Fortunately, I stayed away from the new PW units when it became apparent that they would not work for more than a few feet, and that they did not work with the 5D MK II. Eventually, they figured out how to make them work with a 5D MK II, but the blanket wrapped around the flash is pure hokum.


----------



## Flake (Feb 18, 2011)

Kettch42 Well I'm afraid I can't agree with your conclusions, but isn't that what blogs are for ??

I'll not go through the entire post, but seeing as you seem hung up on the arcing and the ozone issue I'll try to address that. 

In the report there is no indication of a time line of the failure no one knows if the arcing causes the IGBT to fail, or that the IGBT fails at some point and the next use delivers a full power dump to the tube causing the arcing.

The report states :

_Even brand new flashes could fail. We have ruled out heat buildup as a cause since several have failed within the first dozen shots after being pulled out of the camera bag. This is all based on verbal descriptions from customers._

If the cause was a breakdown caused by ozone, it'd have to build up incredibly quickly and flash units in normal use would fail with this fault on a regular basis. In addition the concentrations of ozone measured after continuous use (not the fail mode described only) managed to create a mere 4.7 parts of ozone to a million parts of air - hardly something to worry about when the Canon triggers generated 7.7 ppm

The preliminary conclusions of the report are:

_It appears that some combination of elements comes together to create the risk and increased
probability of an IGBT failure within the 580EX II.
‐ Sealed flash tube assembly (internal zoom carriage assembly)
‐ Misalignment of the flash tube within the reflector such that arcing is more probable
‐ Reduced optical feedback via the fiber optic sense cable in the flash head
‐ Dryer air where ozone can be generated more easily
‐ Electrical discharge through the reflector at a moment when the IGBT is turned off_

So nothing firm, nothing that can be directly pointed at as the specific cause of the fault

_Research will continue in trying to find solutions (if any) to reducing the risk of failures on the 580EX II._

Which is basically just what I said !

As a footnote having discussions about this with a US based test engineer he said they had a problem with a piece of kit, everyone in the company knew there was a problem and they soon found the cause, but everyone was told on pain of the sack not to release it to the public. They never admitted any kind of liability but quietly repaired failed units and changed the design to make it more reliable.


----------



## smeggy (Feb 18, 2011)

Flake said:


> If ozone is a real problem (and I'm not convinced it is at these concentrations) ...



The air inside flashheads usually isn't refreshed at 700ml per minute 

As the report rightly stated, in normal use there is nowhere for any ozone build-up to go (unlike a TV). In that case, the levels would likely far, far higher than the ~10ppm measured during testing.

PW's test was highly invasive!
PocketWizard: if youâ€™re reading this thread, please take note of the following:

What PW should have done (among other things) was to *stop* drawing air through, then set off the flash many times, then draw the air though (slower is better). Doing so would have given a *much more representative* measurement for normal use; they could have achieved >100ppm.

As flawed as PW's methods may be, their report made for a really interesting read and I'm very glad they released it for open scrutiny. I look forward to the prof's analysis.


----------



## Flake (Feb 18, 2011)

One of the things I did today was to talk to a specialist from the industrial gases industry, he told me that ozone is incredibly unstable it really wants to be O2 and even touching something is enough to cause it to revert. Within 4 inches of the source it has decayed away (although you can still smell that sea side smell).

Not much use testing for it if the test equipment destroys the results Smeggy ! Of course that's not what happens and the system knows exactly how much air (and ozone) it has pumped in and measures the difference.

But again I come back to their initial statements that these failures appeared to happen in flashes within a dozen pops not those under heavy use.


----------



## smeggy (Feb 18, 2011)

Flake said:


> One of the things I did today was to talk to a specialist from the industrial gases industry, he told me that ozone is incredibly unstable it really wants to be O2 and even touching something is enough to cause it to revert. Within 4 inches of the source it has decayed away (although you can still smell that sea side smell).


This may well be true and I'm in no position to dispute it. However, we're talking distances far shorter than that (the reflector conducts so that distance doesn't count).

In fact, your theory suggests the ppm level may be even higher than measured in that test. If you are right, I reckon it is likely that the length of the tube, and it's narrow internal diameter, would have caused the bulk of any decay. A shorter and wider tube would likely have resulted with higher ppm readings - if your theory is correct.



Flake said:


> Not much use testing for it if the test equipment destroys the results Smeggy ! Of course that's not what happens and the system knows exactly how much air (and ozone) it has pumped in and measures the difference.


Do you know the effect of the dilution?
Do you know the effect of decay when drawn through the tube?

I'm not in a position to claim PW's tentative conclusion is actually correct; however, their other tests show there is merit to that theory. No one is in a position to be able to dismiss it.

I can only hope PW repeat the tests taking these factors into account, if only to make sure.


----------



## /dev/null (Feb 19, 2011)

The aim of this report is obviously to shift the blame from PW to Canon. 

However, the technical evidence presented is quite impressive. In particular, the report clearly shows that there is arcing between the tube's high voltage circuitry and the reflector. That is just a shoddy design on Canon's side, nothing else. I am certain that all the problems will disappear if the arcing can be avoided.

If Ozone is indeed the problem, then the sealed units could be filled with an intert gas, such as Nitrogen or Argon. My personal view is that the Ozone is created by the spark, and thus is yet another symptom.

The easiest, most effective and safest way to correct the problem would be to increase the distance between the electrodes and the reflector, or to add isolating material (plastic) between the two.

The only question that is left is the following: Do PWs drive the flash in a way that produces more arcing than Canon's own cameras and controllers? 

PWs in HSS produce higher light levels which probably means higher voltage on the flash tube. That would mean a higher probability of arcing. 

It is possible that Canon deliberately limited the light level to keep the voltage down and thus reduce arcing. That would be engineering around the problem rather than fixing the root evil.


----------



## fotoray (Feb 19, 2011)

I sent Canon Support an inquiry about PW problems with 580EX II and got the following response:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the recent study of the design of 
the Speedlite 580 EXII published on the web by LPA Design, the makers of
PocketWizard flash accessories.

Canon USA is aware of the concerns LPA Design raised in its study and 
has forwarded it to Canon Inc., where it is currently under 
investigation. If this investigation concludes that any action is 
required, we will communicate with our customers as appropriate. 

Thank you for using Canon products and we appreciate the opportunity to 
assist you with your inquiry.

Canon USA, Inc.

To me this info allows for this to be a 580EX II problem, and it is apparently being looked into. 

I'm glad to see Canon's acknowledgment of the problem. Hopefully, specific actions needed by Canon and/or PW can be identified soon.


----------



## DetlevCM (Feb 19, 2011)

fotoray said:


> I sent Canon Support an inquiry about PW problems with 580EX II and got the following response:
> 
> Thank you for your inquiry regarding the recent study of the design of
> the Speedlite 580 EXII published on the web by LPA Design, the makers of
> ...



It does allow for it - but to my eyes it still looks more like an issue of Pocketwizards using the flashes outside of Canon's specification.

But be honest, what else can a company do eight now, other than state that they will investigate?

They have to, to be taken seriously - even if they conclude or know that the other product is at fault.


----------



## Kim (Feb 20, 2011)

/dev/null said:


> It is possible that Canon deliberately limited the light level to keep the voltage down and thus reduce arcing. That would be engineering around the problem rather than fixing the root evil.



Isn't that kinda reverse thinking?
Canon have designed the product to their specification.

I would be same as tuning your car to go faster. When it breaks down because you go faster. Then you plan to take it back to the dealership and blaming them for making a bad product.


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 20, 2011)

But there is no tuning involved, its more like the car breaks down because you shift gears to often.

Light levels are controlled via flash duration only, there is no way to change the voltage by sending control signals.
Otherwise you'd have to charge the caps between preflash and the actual flash or use something like a voltage divider and dump most of the power as waste heat.


----------



## DetlevCM (Feb 20, 2011)

Lawliet said:


> But there is no tuning involved, its more like the car breaks down because you shift gears to often.
> 
> Light levels are controlled via flash duration only, there is no way to change the voltage by sending control signals.
> Otherwise you'd have to charge the caps between preflash and the actual flash or use something like a voltage divider and dump most of the power as waste heat.



Which would come down to the same issue.
-> The flash is designed for a certain amount of flashes within a certain amount of time - exceed that by using a third party add-on, then it's the third party manufacturer who is at fault.

Isn't it strange that there doesn't seem to be an issue when the flash is used on Canon bodies or with Canon equipment?

Going back to the car - there is a maximum rpm for your engine - exceed that, break the engine and then complain that the car is badly built. That's what it seems pocketwizard is doing right now.


----------



## canonman (Feb 20, 2011)

Canon KNOWS of the issues with the 580 EX II. Why do I think they know...that is because I have sent my 580 EX II back to Canon's depot three times for issues that have come up. I did scans on the internet and it seems many people have sent back their 580EX II back to the depot several times for issues that have come up. 

My main issue was where the flash unit stopped communicating with the camera. There are still other issues I have right now, but since the flash is no longer under warranty I cannot send it back.

Do not buy the 580 EX II if at all possible. Wait until the next version or make due with the 430 EX II. The 580 EX II will work well for about 3-6 months until issues pop up.


----------



## canonman (Feb 20, 2011)

The 580 EX II is supposed to be a professional level flash...the flagship flash that photojournalists and other professionals are supposed to use. It should be able to survive even the most demanding conditions. My experience with the 580 EX II is that it cannot survive the most demanding conditions and other Speedlites seem more reliable. 

Canon really needs to go back to the drawing board and create a better flash or at least fix the flaws in the current 580 EX II.



DetlevCM said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > But there is no tuning involved, its more like the car breaks down because you shift gears to often.
> ...


----------



## Kim (Feb 20, 2011)

canonman said:


> Canon KNOWS of the issues with the 580 EX II. Why do I think they know...that is because I have sent my 580 EX II back to Canon's depot three times for issues that have come up. I did scans on the internet and it seems many people have sent back their 580EX II back to the depot several times for issues that have come up.
> 
> My main issue was where the flash unit stopped communicating with the camera. There are still other issues I have right now, but since the flash is no longer under warranty I cannot send it back.



You might have had problems with your 580 EX II but it doesn't sound like the same as the ones caused by PocketWizard. The PocketWizard problem is a very precise e.g. dumping full power on pre-flash.


----------



## DetlevCM (Feb 20, 2011)

canonman said:


> The 580 EX II is supposed to be a professional level flash...the flagship flash that photojournalists and other professionals are supposed to use. It should be able to survive even the most demanding conditions. My experience with the 580 EX II is that it cannot survive the most demanding conditions and other Speedlites seem more reliable.
> 
> Canon really needs to go back to the drawing board and create a better flash or at least fix the flaws in the current 580 EX II.
> 
> ...



Your phrase "most demanding conditions" is rather vague.
Have you got a 1D series camera with a sealed lens? Let me chuck it into the sea  it should survive the most demanding conditions.

-> It will possibly break, it's not designed to be waterproof, but weather resistant etc., etc.

Even the fact that something is made for professional use, does not mean that it will survive use outside of it's specification.
-> if you said the 580 fails in light rain when it is sealed -> that would be failing within the specifications.

If you can post links to sources where Canon's 580 EX II has failed when used to Canon's specifications (i.e. no pocketwizards that could be the cause) - then be my guest. Up to then, I'd be careful with trying to lay all the blame on Canon and would rather focus on maybe how Pocketwizard controls the flash.


----------



## DetlevCM (Feb 20, 2011)

canonman said:


> Canon KNOWS of the issues with the 580 EX II. Why do I think they know...that is because I have sent my 580 EX II back to Canon's depot three times for issues that have come up. I did scans on the internet and it seems many people have sent back their 580EX II back to the depot several times for issues that have come up.
> 
> My main issue was where the flash unit stopped communicating with the camera. There are still other issues I have right now, but since the flash is no longer under warranty I cannot send it back.
> 
> Do not buy the 580 EX II if at all possible. Wait until the next version or make due with the 430 EX II. The 580 EX II will work well for about 3-6 months until issues pop up.



"I did scans on the internet" - the internet can scan pages? Interesting... how does it do that?
I guess you searched on the internet 

On that note - where are the links? All we see right now is anecdotal evidence + your post.
How do we know how you used your flash though. If it is a persistent issue then people will have posted about it - and rather than the "odd one" you'd find a fair amount of complaints.

Please post the links to pages where people have complained about their 580EX II failing when used ACCORDING to Canon's specifications. (i.e. not thirds party add-ons)


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 20, 2011)

After seeing all the comments about what a great report this was, I read it this morning. I was not impressed. 

I managed a electrical component lab at a large aerospace company, where we did high voltage arcing tests for components that went into spacecraft and aircraft. Arcing is a big concern, whether it is from corona or from chaffing of wiring, or from secondary effects of lightening strikes.

Nothing I saw in the report hinted at any recognition of high voltage expertise of the testers, it did not identify them or their level of experience, but from the way it was written, it sounded like some low voltage engineers or technicians who were out of their element playing around in a lab that was not equiped either personnel wise or equipment wise to determine a root cause..

They seemed suprised that the arcing started again when they repaired the electronics. This indicated a failure to understand the mechanics of dry arc-tracking. Presumably wet arc-tracking was not involved, since there was no indication of a fluid being involved.

I'm not going to analyze the problem from a distance, but I did not see anything that approached the type of testing or even recognition of what the likely first thing I'd look for happened.

Determining the root cause for arcing is very difficult, and requires a high level of experience with high voltage work.


----------



## /dev/null (Feb 21, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> Nothing I saw in the report hinted at any recognition of high voltage expertise of the testers, it did not identify them or their level of experience, but from the way it was written, it sounded like some low voltage engineers or technicians who were out of their element playing around in a lab that was not equiped either personnel wise or equipment wise to determine a root cause..
> 
> They seemed suprised that the arcing started again when they repaired the electronics. This indicated a failure to understand the mechanics of dry arc-tracking. Presumably wet arc-tracking was not involved, since there was no indication of a fluid being involved.
> 
> ...



I see this as an intermediate report of an investigation in progress.

You are probably right that they are not experts in high-voltage or arcing - after all, they design low-power remote controls. Nevertheless, they have found some useful bits of data:

-- There is evidence of arcing. This can be seen once the cover of the flash tube is removed, but someone has to look first, even if you don't need a lab for this.

-- Seeing the arc happen again after the electronics are fixed shows that the arc breaks the electronics, not faulty electronics cause the arc. Not a big surprise really, but someone had to check.

-- There is a difference in the HSS patterns of their product as compared to Canon's. This difference seems to be related to more faults/arcs occurring with their product than with Canon's.

None of this is rocket science, but I don't know what else you could ask for. If anything, then Canon should be carrying out this investigation. You can hardly expect a third-party supplier to identify and fix all the problems with Canon's design - unless they hope that Canon will farm out the development of future flashes to them. That is not very likely, given that they have limited experience with high voltages, as you pointed out.

As to the comments if PW exceeds Canon's design specifications with their HSS sequence: Maybe yes, maybe no. Most likely Canon never published any specifications so it is impossible to tell. In any case, if the flash had been designed properly, it would not arc. If the door of your car falls off its hinges when you slam it a bit harder than the salesman in the showroom. what do you say?


----------



## DetlevCM (Feb 21, 2011)

/dev/null said:


> scalesusa said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing I saw in the report hinted at any recognition of high voltage expertise of the testers, it did not identify them or their level of experience, but from the way it was written, it sounded like some low voltage engineers or technicians who were out of their element playing around in a lab that was not equiped either personnel wise or equipment wise to determine a root cause..
> ...



That "door slamming comparison" doesn't hold - I don't think you're sending electric signals out of your fingertips.
But look at a stereo:
Assume a car comes with one, and then some adolescent idiot installs a stereo system which causes excessive noise at an incredibly low quality - same as using a pocketwizard so far, isn't it? 3rd party add-on.
Now, let's assume that thirds party sound system fries the cars electronics - some part somewhere between the connectors and the battery doesn't like the power draw - would you complain that the car is badly manufactured?

No, if anybody, either the stereo manufacturer or whoever installed it is at fault.

Same here - because we have no proof that high or abnormal failure rates exist when used on Canon bodies or with Canon equipment, the fault lies with Pocketwizard.
And it doesn't matter how good or bad the design is if it works reliably on Canon equipment.

(Do you complain about an 80ies car (those boxy things) using more fuel because the "designers" didn't have a clue what aerodynamics is? I'm sure you won't - even though more aerodynamic cars have been built in the past)


----------



## kettch42 (Feb 21, 2011)

Hi Flake,

You're right that there is no definite cause and effect fact on this issue between the transistor failing and the tube arcing. But to me, it seems more likely that the fault in the tube is causing the transistor to fail because of these excerpts from the report: 

(page 2)
_Repaired units that have only the IGBT replaced will frequently fail again within relatively short time periods...
...Eventually we found that the flash head was also bad...
Replacement of the flash heads solved the failure problems and the flashes could no longer be made to fail... _

And on page 11:
_ To further test this theory, we removed the glass front cover from a flash head assembly that typically did cause IGBTs to fail. With the glass cover removed, we can't get the IGBT to fail._



Flake said:


> If the cause was a breakdown caused by ozone, it'd have to build up incredibly quickly and flash units in normal use would fail with this fault on a regular basis. In addition the concentrations of ozone measured after continuous use (not the fail mode described only) managed to create a mere 4.7 parts of ozone to a million parts of air - hardly something to worry about when the Canon triggers generated 7.7 ppm



As smeggy pointed out in a few posts, the concentration of ozone was very high (between strong dilution and unstable, decaying ozone they still measured a significant amount). The higher continuous voltages of HSS cause more ozone (with voltage levels being more significant than duration). On page 14 you can see how the PW actually uses a lower voltage for HSS than Canon does, and therefore created less ozone than the Canon HSS (page 13). 

So my question is: how can PW prove that the flashes fail just as often (or more, as they suggest) on other systems as their own? If they did, it would end all discussion, but I don't think it would be possible for them to do this. Canon probably will never admit the problem, if it exists, just like in your footnote anecdote.


----------



## /dev/null (Feb 21, 2011)

DetlevCM said:


> That "door slamming comparison" doesn't hold - I don't think you're sending electric signals out of your fingertips.
> But look at a stereo:
> Assume a car comes with one, and then some adolescent idiot installs a stereo system which causes excessive noise at an incredibly low quality - same as using a pocketwizard so far, isn't it? 3rd party add-on.
> Now, let's assume that thirds party sound system fries the cars electronics - some part somewhere between the connectors and the battery doesn't like the power draw - would you complain that the car is badly manufactured?



Actually, I would complain. There should be a fuse to prevent that from happening. Now if the idiot tampered with the fuse..... he would get what he is asking for.

In any case, I do not expect Cannon to admit any design faults, so we will never find out. PW's investigatoin, unfortunately, is not likely to provide any more insight either, given the direction they are taking. As scalesusa pointed out they need an expert in high voltages and arcing.

I do expect the 580 EX III, whenever it comes, to be designed such that is does not arc ;-)


----------



## DetlevCM (Feb 21, 2011)

/dev/null said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > That "door slamming comparison" doesn't hold - I don't think you're sending electric signals out of your fingertips.
> ...



Except that the stock fuse could be in the stereo itself 

-> the key point here is, you have a third party add-on manufacturer pointing a finger at Canon and shifting the blame to them when THEY make the equipment that breaks the flash.

Canon does not have to care about what other companies do - they only have to design their equipment to work within it's own specs.


----------



## SouthXylophone (Feb 21, 2011)

When this happened to my only 580x2, I was ... sad, angry, vengeful, morose, apoplecticly ragey, and other emotions that require special characters. When I contacted PocketWizard, they said the same thing - make sure to get the head repaired properly because of arching (WTH is "properly?") My flash was repaired under warranty by Canon: "battery box replaced" and "flash head assembly replaced" so I hope I'm okay - would have been nice to have the pictures from this report, though. I just hope they did it "properly" but I'm not voiding the rest of my warranty or risking my life to take it apart and find out. If it blows again, it'll go in with a printout of this report (saving a copy in case PW pulls it for some reason). PW said it would blow again if it wasn't fixed right. Great. Just ... great.

Their explanation seems to make sense, but like y'all I wanted evidence that others had the same issue WITHOUT the Mini/Flex to prove it wasn't a PW problem. I found some. See below.

Even without evidence there is one thing that sticks in my craw on this. The PW talks to the flash through the shoe. I assume there's a Canon CPU *between* the shoe and the rest of the flash guts. Canon's CPU runs the flash guts based on what it hears from the shoe. Why did the CPU let it happen? Isn't it the CPU's job to operate on the guts properly? If it heard something it didn't like from the shoe, should it even fire? PW says "everything they say to the flash they learned from a camera" so how could it be out of range? PW radios move *information* around. The Canon CPU moves *power* around. Who is responsible for damage that appears to be totally power based (granted, according to PW only)?

The analogy I thought of is car stereo-based, too. It's like putting a CD in the STOCK player and then some bass note in the music blows your speakers. The CD can handle the bass note. So can the stock player and the stock amp (bass is part of the CD spec). But the stock speaker blew and you weren't even playing it that loud. Is it the CD's fault? Hardly - it's just information. The stock speakers were crap, obviously. If all you played till now was Joni Mitchell and you dropped in some Eminem for the first time, it's probably not the rappers fault your speaker blew.

But in the PW report it seems like they even tried to "sound" exactly like Canon (page 15), but the problem stayed until they fixed the tube alignment. No amount of firmware updates to the Mini/Flex will move the tube around for you. I really want to hate PW because then it would be easier to love my no-longer-perfect 580EX II, but they make a compelling argument.


*EVIDENCE without PW* (I registered just to share my research on this which I did because I wasn't convinced at first that PW wasn't part of the problem, still don't know for certain - anyone know anyone at Canon to ask because only they would know?):

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/904307

A whole topic about it. PW never mentioned.


http://www.flickr.com/groups/pocketwizards/discuss/72157623362956049/72157623898130266/

"im having the same problem on my 580exii. It exclusively fires full power at any mode. no more ettl for me for 4 months now. ... however, there's a little difference in my case. i haven't used my flash on the new PocketWizards that supports ETTL. I have been using the old PlusII's for 3 years with this flash."

P2 can't do HSS or pre-flash, so that's interesting. Maybe it was used on a camera, too?


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=11857089&postcount=15

"Both of my 580EXIIs failed as described. One failed again when being tested on a camera when it returned from CPS. I had a 580EX exhibit the same failed behavior long before I bought my first FlexTT5. And I use the 580EXs all the time on the FlexTT5 without a problem. The problem is unique to 580EXIIs for me. And its happened in the hot shoe."

Underlining mine - gee, I hope *my* flash was repaired better than that!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=11859199&postcount=21 

"There actually have been reports of people frying the 580EX's and never even owned a TT5. It happens far less but the potential of the problem is still present without the use of the TT5. So in the end this issue falls back on Canon."

No links, though. The plural of anecdote of is ... rumor? 


AND RIGHT HERE IN THIS THREAD:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,615.msg7997.html#msg7997

"My original 580 EX II failed with a blown flash tube. After sending it to CPS 5 times for repair, they finally gave me a new "refurbished" 580 EX II. I EXCLUSIVELY use HSS without any third-party intermediary device. I'm not sure I can fault Canon on the first flash blowing out because I probably shot 10,000 frames on HSS- I think it was just it's time."

Old flash, maybe. I've heard of wedding guys triggering 3,000 flashes at one wedding (probably not all HSS, granted), so 10k doesn't seem like a lot. Hard to tell if this is the same problem, though. If they were all TTL, then the pre-flash *is* HSS, so ...


http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,615.msg7928.html#msg7928

Canon Rumors administrator - "There has been a lot of people writing in over the years about their 580EX IIâ€™s constantly failing. People became more vocal around the time the PocketWizard FlexTT5 and MiniTT1 launched..."

Care to elaborate on that? Is it *this* failure, full dumps all the time? Or is it bad shoe contacts or something else which is different?


----------



## DetlevCM (Feb 21, 2011)

Yay 

Finally someone who provides source links for non-Pocketwizard issues so that we (readers) can evaluate it by ourselves.

Not just anectdotal evidence.


----------



## SouthXylophone (Feb 21, 2011)

SouthXylophone said:


> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/904307
> 
> A whole topic about it. PW never mentioned.



??? This one is not as clear cut as I thought. BubbaJon owns the FlexTT5. We just never know if it was involved with the failed 580EX II. BillyBuff claims the same problem, but never mentions PW.


----------



## Canonista (Feb 21, 2011)

I don't get it. Why is Canon taking the blame here for what appears to be a simple case of equipment incompatibility? I've used the 580ex for years without any problems, and I've never known anyone in my community of photographers to have that flash fail like this.

It's situations like this that cause all manufacturers of electrical products including Canon to advise against using third-party components, particularly where it may affect the electrical integrity of the product. Canon haven't tested and aren't responsible for determining whether those third-party components are compatible with Canon equipment, and hence the warning.

A good example of this is the typical mfr warning against using third-party batteries. Of course, many of us do it for our cameras and laptops to save a few dollars, but should I blame Canon when I am knowingly taking the risk that the battery may be outside Canon's spec or made to poor quality standards and fries my camera?

By the same logic, if I buy third-party lenses, and they later turned out to be incompatible with future generations of Canon cameras, I have no one to blame but the third-party lens mfr or myself.

We can complain all we want about the cost or the limitations of what Canon offers versus third-party mfrs, but there's probably a reason for both.


----------



## Caring (Feb 22, 2011)

Canonista said:


> I don't get it. Why is Canon taking the blame here for what appears to be a simple case of equipment incompatibility? I've used the 580ex for years without any problems, and I've never known anyone in my community of photographers to have that flash fail like this.



I totally agree. My work is primarily on the IT vendor side, and it is an industry standard that vendors do not accept responsibility for failure of products when used in conjunction with unapproved third party products. Until PW can conclusively demonstrate that the sole cause is the 580EX II design, then Canon should be presumed innocent.

I may not be a technical guru, but I identify a number of issues with the report:

1. The only firm conclusion in the report is that the IGBT was damaged in each of the failed units ("IGBT Damaged Units"). Otherwise, the report is riddled with 'weasel words' and opinions, so it makes a mockery of a scientific study (eg. "We have no knowledge of", "It appears", etc).

2. The report is only talks about arcing in IGBT Damaged Units. There is no statement in the report that arcing occurs in all 580EX IIs, particularly those which have not been used in conjunction with PWs. I guess the IGBT has something to do with regulating flash output, and as such I would not be surprised if there was damage caused to the tube when the flash is used with a damaged regulator component.

3. The Preflash Boost or anything else that modifies the pre-flash output is essentially a 'hack' as it alters the normal Canon operation of the flash. This is already using the flash outside of Canon specifications. The report's statement that they have defaulted the Preflash setting to 'Off' for 5 months is hardly any form of reliable methodology. If this 'hack' is damaging the flash, then even using it once or twice may be overloading the IGBT or other components, and does not necessarily need to be 'On' at the time of flash failure.

Thanks,

Caring


----------



## Flake (Feb 22, 2011)

_The analogy I thought of is car stereo-based, too. It's like putting a CD in the STOCK player and then some bass note in the music blows your speakers. The CD can handle the bass note. So can the stock player and the stock amp (bass is part of the CD spec). But the stock speaker blew and you weren't even playing it that loud. Is it the CD's fault? Hardly - it's just information. The stock speakers were crap, obviously. If all you played till now was Joni Mitchell and you dropped in some Eminem for the first time, it's probably not the rappers fault your speaker blew._


Many years ago a company called Telarc recorded the 1812 overture with live Canon and the Cincinnatti orchestra the final canon had a double charge and blew out many windows when fired. The recording was High Fidelity, and carried a warning that it could damage equipment low level stuff couldn't even play the record & even the high end gear struggled. Now it's released on CD and still carries a warning, it has destroyed audio equipment and in some cases peoples hearing too.

Your analogy is flawed therefore it can be the fault of the CD and in much the same way if the software in the pocket wizzard causes the 580EX II to operate outside of its design limits then it's the pocket wizzards fault, and it does appear this is what is is doing with the HSS.


----------



## SouthXylophone (Feb 22, 2011)

Flake said:


> Your analogy is flawed therefore it can be the fault of the CD and in much the same way if the software in the pocket wizzard causes the 580EX II to operate outside of its design limits then it's the pocket wizzards fault, and it does appear this is what is is doing with the HSS.



(I guessed Telarc discs would be brought up. I have an Erich Kunzel from the 80's with that warning on it)

Analogies are always flawed - they try to map something unknown to something known, but they aren't the actual thing therefore imperfect. 

That said, let's play with the analogy for a moment.

PW says they use commands they learned from the cameras. This isn't a new master recording. They are sampling the music they've already heard and are playing it back. They are looping Joni Mitchell, not creating Erich Kunzel. 

The Telarc thing was certainly *very* true back in the early days of CDs being played on equipment designed for a limited analog range. Nowadays every CD is compressed for MAXIMUM LOUDNESS, and stereo components are made of better things. If a stock car stereo from the last 10 years can't handle any CD you'd buy at WalMart ... well. : 

New Canon gear is supposedly state of the art.




Canonista said:


> 1. The only firm conclusion in the report is that the IGBT was damaged in each of the failed units ("IGBT Damaged Units"). Otherwise, the report is riddled with 'weasel words' and opinions, so it makes a mockery of a scientific study (eg. "We have no knowledge of", "It appears", etc).



What you call weasel words are also used in science. Some tests were done. There is more to do as they said. They may learn that they are in fact the problem, but so far they have a strong theory as to why they are not the problem. Do you take issue with the work, or just the use of careful words?

They concluded that in flashes with poorly aligned tubes, the IGBT gets hosed easily. They say with certainty that every flash they've found with a bad IGBT *also* has charring. Align the tube properly (or replace the head), and the IGBT does NOT blow. This is all on page 2. Not weasely at all.



Canonista said:


> 2. The report is only talks about arcing in IGBT Damaged Units. There is no statement in the report that arcing occurs in all 580EX IIs, particularly those which have not been used in conjunction with PWs. I guess the IGBT has something to do with regulating flash output, and as such I would not be surprised if there was damage caused to the tube when the flash is used with a damaged regulator component.



You've got it backwards. The poorly aligned tube damages the IGBT, not the other way around. Page 2. Fix the tube and the IGBT does not blow AND the arching stops. That's pretty clear.

And they do things with "good working units," too. Figure 10 says it all for me - a *good* flash just doesn't arc _even on a PW_. This all makes sense when you look at the numbers - the grand majority of flashes work just fine and less than 1% fail. There is going to be more a lot more "good" data then bad.



Canonista said:


> 3. The Preflash Boost or anything else that modifies the pre-flash output is essentially a 'hack' as it alters the normal Canon operation of the flash. This is already using the flash outside of Canon specifications. The report's statement that they have defaulted the Preflash setting to 'Off' for 5 months is hardly any form of reliable methodology. If this 'hack' is damaging the flash, then even using it once or twice may be overloading the IGBT or other components, and does not necessarily need to be 'On' at the time of flash failure.



Only Canon knows if it is outside specification and they are silent. 

The point of turning Boost OFF for 5 months of firmware was to prove the failure rate didn't change. Presumably they had at least as many new customers in those 5 months as they did in the previous 5 months. If the rate went down they would have learned something different. That's just logic. It is highly unlikely that *new* users all went out of their way to enable it once just to keep the fail rate the same (and internet scuttlebutt says "TURN IT OFF" all over the place, so why would they turn it on?). 

I'm just pulling stuff from the report and here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/pocketwizards/discuss/72157623362956049/72157625949175952/. 

If you are in that less than 1% group, and your flash is not in warranty, you are screwed. You can choose who you think is screwing you, but PW has shared how they think they are not. Canon has shared nothing. For all we know, they have piles of flashes with this same problem, else why would they repair it under warranty? That bugs me a little.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 22, 2011)

SouthXylophone said:


> You've got it backwards. The poorly aligned tube damages the IGBT, not the other way around. Page 2. Fix the tube and the IGBT does not blow AND the arching stops. That's pretty clear.



While it is true that you can modify the flash to give a wider potential arc gap, that requirement itself makes me suspicious that the PW is using a faster rise time to the signal pulse. 

IGBT's are notorious for inducing arcing due to their very fast rise times of the output. If you modify that, then that is very likely to cause the problem. 

Its a simple impedance issue, the fast rise time creates a impedance mismatch and power is reflected at the connection of the tube. The reflected voltage adds to the incoming voltage, and you suddenly have twice the voltage, and it arcs over. It has happened in many applications. These guys might be good logic and low voltage engineers, but they apparently fail to see the obvious that someone working in high voltage pulses would look for first.


----------



## smeggy (Feb 22, 2011)

There is a lot of unreasoned guesswork going on in this thread.

While it is right to initially reasonably suspect PW, PW have done some reasonable testing that suggests the problem is not down to their product; so it is now wrong to assume PW is the sole suspect.

The point about risetimes is unreasonable as it is unlikely that mere control signals from PW can affect it.
All the talk of risetimes, incompatibilities and whatnots have already been cast into doubt by one of PW's simple tests: removing the front panel. Doing so has absolutely no effect on the electrics, yet seemed to have stopped the symptoms completely. This is why I cannot discount their tentative conclusion of O3.

PWâ€™s testing is far from conclusive, but assuming theyâ€™re not fibbing, it does show that no one has any reasonable cause to lay blame at PW only.

The fact that 430s (and other flashes) donâ€™t blow does rather suggest the 580s genuinely are unusually susceptible to something. Perhaps it is merely the RF from nearby PWs, I donâ€™t know. We know the 580s radiate more than most, so it stands to reason they could also be susceptible to RF (bad shielding, poor step-up design).
The flashes being damaged by a nearby RF source (not necessarily electrically connected) is whose failure?

Speculation is fine, but I think folks shouldnâ€™t jump to *any* conclusions, at least not until someone does a proper follow-up analysis.

I own PWs and the 430EX II. Fingers crossed!
(I am not affiliated with PW, or Canon, or any other related company, in any way)


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 22, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> While it is true that you can modify the flash to give a wider potential arc gap, that requirement itself makes me suspicious that the PW is using a faster rise time to the signal pulse.



The communication between flash and the camera is SPI based, you request a pulse of a certain power level and tell the flash when to fire without anything analog involved. Driving the high voltage part is the responsibility of the controller in the flash. I can't see how the could make the flash do something it is not designed to do, at least if you're willing to see the boosted preflash as a normal flash, similar to the stroboscope mode.


----------



## Caring (Feb 22, 2011)

> They concluded that in flashes with poorly aligned tubes, the IGBT gets hosed easily. They say with certainty that every flash they've found with a bad IGBT *also* has charring. Align the tube properly (or replace the head), and the IGBT does NOT blow. This is all on page 2. Not weasely at all.



If the flash has bad IGBT, then it is already damaged, and why is it being used for further testing. This does not equate to a controlled environment nor does it confirm whether the chicken or the egg came first.




> You've got it backwards. The poorly aligned tube damages the IGBT, not the other way around. Page 2. Fix the tube and the IGBT does not blow AND the arching stops. That's pretty clear.
> 
> And they do things with "good working units," too. Figure 10 says it all for me - a *good* flash just doesn't arc _even on a PW_. This all makes sense when you look at the numbers - the grand majority of flashes work just fine and less than 1% fail. There is going to be more a lot more "good" data then bad.



I do not know what an IGBT is, but I do know how to read. Page 2 clearly states "Below are examples of 580EX II flash heads that were causing IGBT failures to repeat". PW purchased Damaged IGBT Units, then PW repaired the IGBT, only to find further failure of the tube (possibly because it was already damaged) in those repaired Damaged IGBT Units. I don't know whether the damaged tube comes first or the damaged IGBT comes first.

All of these fancy oscilloscope graphs show absolutely nothing. There is no methodology, or an explanation around the controlled environment in which they should have been conducted (eg. is it a new 580ex unit? is it a repaired Damaged IGBT Unit?).

I only need to see one oscilloscope graph - that is the one of a Canon 580EX II flash straight out of the box, firing without a PW unit. Strangely, this one was omitted?  No scientist would test an alleged 'design fault' solely with graphs using a unit tempered/tainted by an unapproved third party product.


Thanks,

Caring


----------



## SouthXylophone (Feb 23, 2011)

Caring said:


> I only need to see one oscilloscope graph - that is the one of a Canon 580EX II flash straight out of the box, firing without a PW unit. Strangely, this one was omitted?  No scientist would test an alleged 'design fault' solely with graphs using a unit tempered/tainted by an unapproved third party product.



You're right in that they could have done a better job showing us the control. But consider this:


What if the control looks exactly like Figure 10? It seems pretty damn likely.
They say it is less than 1%. They might have to buy 200 new flashes to find 1 that exhibits the issue. So they found a way to get failed flashes and did a lot of analysis on them. That seems logical and very practical.
The failures they collected aren't "lab experiments," they are the real deal. By changing ONE aspect in these failed flashes, they can repair it once and get it to not fail again. The argument against that is they weren't "scientific" enough? Okay, but that does not invalidate their finding of FIXED TUBE=FIXED FLASH. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but that statement is pretty well backed up by their doc, at least to me.
I can't be led to believe all the flashes PocketWizard owns are previous failures. Since the problem has low manifestation (less than 1% they say), they must have had flashes in house that have never failed (they test their own circuitry, presumably) or they would have known about this 2 years ago. Just like 99+% of their customers, they probably just used the "good" flashes they own as a baseline. Who knows or CARES if every flash they own has been used with a radio - a good flash doesn't fail regardless (strongly suggesting that radio usage is NOT the cause) and that evidence is overwhelming (99+%)). I'll take a risk and say they presented the evidence from failed flashes mostly because that's where the rubber meets the road on this issue.
Flashes repaired BY CANON can fail again. I linked that earlier. The IGBT is probably on the "battery box" board and if that is the only thing Canon repaired, the flash can fail again. CANON. Not PW. What PW is saying is that *only* fixing the tube *stops* IGBT failures. You don't need to replace anything else in the flash after that.

I had to look "SPI" up on Wikipedia. Lines up with what I was told: the CPU in the flash controls the high voltage stuff. There is nothing PW could say over a serial port that will mis-align the tube. PW may or may not have "high voltage engineers." I'd have to say the same for Canon because why would a high voltage engineer design a system where a serial command causes an unwanted electrical arc ... like EVER? It's like a hacker's dream - a command you can give your modem to blow up the other guy's computer.

You either believe PW when they say tubes are misaligned, and are the primary source of failure and simplest successful repair, or you don't. I kinda sorta do. I'm an easy skeptic, but nothing said here has been extremely compelling against PW, at least in my estimation so far. They could have done a better job with the control data. They could tell us their high voltage cred or not. But all of that seems like peanuts compared to what they DID find pretty clearly: FIX THE TUBE = FIX THE FLASH.


----------



## DavidWhelan1 (Feb 23, 2011)

Humm... sounds like PW is trying to head-off a class-action lawsuit... or the demands of everyone who's bought them from demands to have them returned....

Glad I'm not them... and yeah, good point, why didn't they include the results from 'non-contaminated' units that haven't been attached to PW?

I own two of these units and am quite concerned - at this point, no problems with my 580EX II...

-David


----------



## Boogietek (May 26, 2011)

This was a very useful conversation that I had first with Canon Support and then with Pocketwizard Support...

I called Canon support regarding an issue with my flashes 580EX II that doesn't regulate the power, what I mean is that they shot on 1/1 even if I set them to 1/6, 1/16 or any other value, and the customer support told me that Pocketwizard had recent reportedly an issue with the communication with the flash and was blowing up the circuits and blah blah blah... I said ok! perfect, I'm gonna send you my all four flashes because I need them fixed... Then this morning I send the following email to Pocketwizard and here is what they explain me:

------------------------------------------
Message:
Hi, I own seven (7) Pocketwizard's FlexTT5 radio slaves with AC5 RF Soft
Shield (all of them with the accessory), and I'm having a problem
working with my four (4) Canon 580EX II flashes. I have called Canon
Support to report that my all four flashes aren't regulating the potency
of the light, they only shot at highest 1/1 even if you set them to any
lower setting like 1/8, 1/16 that are the most usable settings in my
case. Then, when Canon support made me a lot of questions about what is
all the equipment, settings, and habits handling my cameras (two Canon
7D bodies and one Canon t2i body), and they concluded that the problem
is that the Pocketwizard's FlexTT5 are burning the flash circuits in
certain shots. As Canon Support received a communication letter from
Pocketwizard explaining some communications problems and causing this
failure to the Canon 580EX II flashes. Now I want to send you all my
seven (7) radio slaves to fix this problem that have caused me a lots of
inconvenience including loss of money and my client's time and the setup
of all scenarios situations in my photo sessions of weddings and model
portraits and what means that my business is loosing advantage and
having a bad reputation because of this. I want a quick solution with
this because I have trusted my photography business in Pocketwizard
since many years ago and I can't loose anymore clients with this
problems. Regards, Boogietek.

Answer:
Thank you for your inquiry. I am sorry that you have experienced this frustrating issue. Our research indicates that this is a mechanical issue in the 580EX II that can happen with High Speed Sync. It does not require our radios to happen, though a lot of people use High Speed Sync or E-TTL features of their Speedlites for the first time, or more heavily, when using our radios.

Everything we "say" to the flash is an E-TTL command we learned from the E-TTL system. It is highly unlikely that our saying â€œHey flash, please fire at one of your known levelsâ€ is the problem. There is a microprocessor inside the flash between the flashâ€™s hot shoe and its triggering/tube components. We tell the microprocessor, in its own language, to flash at pre-defined levels. What happens with communications from the flashâ€™s microprocessor to the triggering/tube circuits is not within our control.

I'm not sure what document your Canon Support contact was referring to, but we have never written anything with that description. We firmly believe the issue is in the tube/reflector alignment and there is nothing our radios can do to move that tube around. This issue does not occur exclusively with PocketWizard radios, but does occur exclusively with the 580EX II.

If a 580EX II is under warranty, then we recommend that warranty options be pursued. If not, read on:

We have just started offering a repair service to help people out of a bind with this issue, and only this issue. We won't repair any other kinds of flash failure, only this one. It is expressly for the problem of "BLOWN IGBT." The primary symptom is that the flash still fires, but you are unable to control the output - it is always a full power flash. When in ETTL mode directly mounted on the camera, you get a full power pre-flash and no flash in the exposure. In manual mode, all settings from 1/128 through 1/1 are full power dumps. Otherwise the flash appears normal (LCD and buttons work, display changes when used on a camera, hot shoe is intact, etc.).

We charge $30 USD per flash to repair the blown IGBT and tweak the flash tube alignment so it is much less likely to ever fail again. While we have the flash open, we would also offer to do the RF mod to the flash (so it doesn't need the AC5) for $15 USD, if you wanted. Again, this special offer for the RF mod is only if we have the flash open expressly for IGBT repair. Other parts would be at cost. For example: sometimes the reflector assembly is so charred we cannot adequately clean it, so a new tube/reflector assembly is required for an additional ~$40. If the flash reveals some other mechanical failing that is outside the scope of the service we provide, we can work with our local Canon-authorized repair center to facilitate those repairs (you would have to pay for these repairs) - an example would be the internal optical fiber being kinked, which, when paired with a tube misalignment, leads to faster IGBT failure.

Our repair fee covers slow surface return shipping. If you want the flash back faster, shipping charges would be at cost. No repairs would be performed without your authorization first.

Here are some images showing the tube misalignment in detail:

http://www.lpadesign.com/Tube%20metal,%20none%20-%20580EX%20II.jpg
http://www.lpadesign.com/Tube%20metal,%20a%20lot%20-%20580EX%20II.jpg
http://www.lpadesign.com/Tube%20metal,%20a%20little%20-%20580EX%20II.jpg


The repair process is pretty simple. You just send the flash to my address below. Include phone contact information and when we receive it, we'll call you for credit card or PayPal information. We tend to turn these around very quickly.

If you have other 580EX II Speedlites and you are worried about them, you can send them to us. We will look inside and tweak the tube as needed. Note - we only offer this service to folk who have actually experienced an IGBT failure. When looking, we might discover that your flash tube and reflector are still working, but in poor condition or uncleanable - we could then replace that assembly for ~$40 as I mentioned before. This service could void your warranty. While we do a very clean job, there may be evidence visible to a trained technician that we've been inside the flash.


To clarify:

$30 each = IGBT repair, tube tweak+reflector clean, return ground shipping

+ $15 each gets you the RF MOD, but only if that flash is also getting an IGBT repair

+ ~$40 each if the tube/reflector carriage needs to be replaced (so far, > 50% need this)

$0 = Validate tube on other flashes, but $0 charge is only for folk like you that have experienced IGBT failure



If you do decide to get rid of your 580EX IIs, you might want to consider replacing them with 430EX IIs. Learn more about the 430EX II versus the 580EX II here:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10050-10598-10599

We have never seen evidence of a 430EX II experiencing this issue. Our analysis of this flash shows that the tube spacing to the reflector is adequate, and the area is vented. This is a great flash with our system and we hope all future Speedlites are designed as well as this one.

If you have further questions, please reply to this email and keep the case number in the subject line.

Take care,

Patrick Clow
PocketWizard Tech Support Manager

Then I replied:
Thank you for this good news, I'm gonna wait for Canon to return all my 580EX II's and send it to you to do the IGBT repair, tube tweak+reflector clean, and the RF MOD to all four flashes so I don't have to experience this again... trust me, I've been in serious trouble in the middle of outdoor shootouts with my clients. By the way, I'm gonna send you in the same package all my Pocketwizard's FlexTT5 so you can check them for any issues (just in case), because I'm really afraid of having problems again in the middle of a work with any client and I want to be sure that everything is working in perfect conditions. First I was thinking in what you told about changing all my flashes for the 430EX II, but the deal is that I have plenty accessories and adapters, and stuffs that only fits to the 580EX II, and I have invested much money in all that...

Thanks again.
---------------------------------------------
I hope that my case helps anyone because I really know what a mess this could be!


----------



## Admin US West (May 27, 2011)

IGBT's are devices that have a ultra fast rise time. This can and does cause a high voltage spike that can damage equipment. I suspect that the PW results in a faster rise time which results in a arc over that would otherwise not happen. The EX430 is a lower powered device and would likely be less affected. 

PW seems to have a habit of asking users to modify their Canon flashes so that they will work with their equipment.

There is another fix to add a capacitor internally to reduce RF interference with the PW controller.

After a while, there seems to be a pattern.


----------



## kennykodak (May 27, 2011)

the only regret i have from switching from Nikon to Canon is flash. Nikon makes a superior flash. my 580EX II's are useless in back light and with the pocket wizards just zooming in a little screws that up. maybe a 580EX IX's will address something more than the need for a new item on the market.


----------



## Admin US West (May 27, 2011)

kennykodak said:


> the only regret i have from switching from Nikon to Canon is flash. Nikon makes a superior flash. my 580EX II's are useless in back light and with the pocket wizards just zooming in a little screws that up. maybe a 580EX IX's will address something more than the need for a new item on the market.



Useless in backlight? Mine works fine, Useless is a vague term.

You are also blaming Canon for Pocket Wizard issues? Canon has no control over what PW does, and the PW units appeared long after the 580 EX II. Shouldn't Pocket wizard have tested their unit to see if everything works?


----------



## smeggy (May 27, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> IGBT's are devices that have a ultra fast rise time. This can and does cause a high voltage spike that can damage equipment. I suspect that the PW results in a faster rise time...


This is nonsense.
The comms interface does not control such rise times.
(note: I have designed and made 1ns impulse laser diode drivers for lidar equipment)



scalesusa said:


> The EX430 is a lower powered device and would likely be less affected.


I suspect you are wrong. I have used and tested both 430 and 530, they yield an equal number of flashes before the reservoir is depleted, with the same camera settings and batteries. I believe the 530 is 'stronger' because it has a better parabolic reflector (bigger is always better). We already know the design of those internal reflectors differ between the two models.



scalesusa said:


> There is another fix to add a capacitor internally to reduce RF interference with the PW controller.


If true (and we know there is an issue with greater susceptibility with the 530), this suggests the comms interface really isn't the issue.


----------



## Admin US West (May 27, 2011)

smeggy said:


> scalesusa said:
> 
> 
> > IGBT's are devices that have a ultra fast rise time. This can and does cause a high voltage spike that can damage equipment. I suspect that the PW results in a faster rise time...
> ...



What do you mean "if True" Did you go to the Pocket wizard site? and, of course it has nothing to do with the communication interface, no one said it did.

http://www.pocketwizard.com/support/tech_bulletins/580exii_mod/

The Fact is; PW sold these units for use with Canon speedlites and claimed a 400ft plus range, when the range was more like 40 ft or less.

How could they have tested them with a 580 EX II and not known this? Then, 580 EX II owners started reporting failures due to high voltage flashover from the reflector. Falures of this type are not being reported by NON PW users. I've had a number of 430's, 580's and 580 EX II's for years now with no failures. And yes, they were used with the old style pocket wizards. Its the new model that has the issues.


----------



## unfocused (May 27, 2011)

I know I'm a little late to the party but...

Has this problem been reported with any other radio triggers? And No, I am not trying to start a fight. I just want to know because I've thought about buying some of the Chinese knockoffs to play with. But I don't want to fry my strobes. 

I haven't seen anything on the internets about the imports, but I don't follow these technical things as closely as some others on this forum.


----------



## fotox.tv (May 28, 2011)

My view of the situation:

Some Canon Speedlites do not withstand frequent usage of FP flashes.
This is what PocketWizard says.
I myself have experienced that fault with a Canon 420EX - it broke after several FP flashes directly (!) on the camera. No PocketWizards involved.

So why does this problem seems to happen so often with Pocket Wizards?
Very probably because many users do not use FP just because they have not understood the principle of have not read the product description.
PocketWizard advertise the use of high speed flashing, so PocketWizard users will very likely use FP mode much more often than "normal" users. And will run into the usual problems when using a consumer good in a professional environment. [And now I wait for a discussion breaking loose whether 420/430/580 are consumer goods or not...].


----------



## Flake (Jun 24, 2011)

Well seeing as this is a faulty by design thread I thought I might as well post this here, because it seems like the flash has another issue at the other end, when the shoe can become loose, and fails to make proper contact with the camera.

http://shimworld.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/speedlite-580ex-ii-hotshoe-fix/

At least this site gives step by step instructions as to how to repair the thing, though it's perhaps not for the faint hearted.


----------



## Shift7 (Jul 20, 2012)

Hello, I have problems with mine 580EX II. I used for few photosessions it together with PocketWizards Flex TT5. One day it stopped working. Red light shows up, but neither pilot nor by triggering with camera works.
I have read that 580EX II have issues with PocketWizards when used in HighSync mode (this mode was used when it stopped working). Read this document http://lpadesign.com/580EXII.pdf 
Thought that lamp gone off, order new one (only flash tube), changed. But it won't solved problem. On boths ends there is 300V, but on additional 3rd lead there is no reaction.


What to look for else? Maybe someone had similar issue?

Maybe I should buy not only lamp (old one was good), but whole unit?
http://www.darntoothysam.com/products/Canon-Speedlite-580EX-II-Flash-Tube-Trigger-Unit-Repair-Part.html


----------



## Bosman (Sep 5, 2012)

I am convinced the Pocket Wizard TT system killed 3 flashes within the time i had them. I never had a flash go bad before using them.


----------



## pixyl (Sep 9, 2012)

I've read this thread with great interest as I plan to buy a second hand 580EX or 580EX II, but am worried about the problems I've read about. The EX II has better features which the EX doesn't, but then again I haven't heard of any reliability problems with that model.
However, I _don't_ intend getting a Pocket Wizard and from what I've read so far it seems that if the 580EX II does start acting up with HSS etc it is usually fixed (and works reliably from then on) after replacing the xenon flash tube AND the IBGT transistor.

Since I'm comfortable with a soldering iron and electronic components (yes, I know about the high voltage risk, but once the batteries have been removed and the capacitor has been confirmed drained it should be no problem) I was wondering: are these two items regular off-the-shelf electronic components available from just about any electronics supplier at low cost or are they made to custom specs by Canon only making them hard and expensive to replace yourself?

I did check out the website mentioned a few posts earlier, but this still doesn't include the IGBT (I know, Canon would simply replace the entire circuit board than desolder a damaged IGBT, which explains this, but I would be quite happy replacing just a single component instead).


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 10, 2012)

pixyl said:


> (yes, I know about the high voltage risk, but once the batteries have been removed and the capacitor has been confirmed drained it should be no problem)


That can lead to an high voltage surprise - caps regenerate some residual charge from their dielectric separator.


> I was wondering: are these two items regular off-the-shelf electronic components available from just about any electronics supplier at low cost or are they made to custom specs by Canon only making them hard and expensive to replace yourself?


The IGBT is most likely off the shelf, perhaps w/o or with a custom label, the tubes aren't that common.
But without knowing wether its just about part specs or their alignment that doesn't say much.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 10, 2012)

Bosman said:


> I am convinced the Pocket Wizard TT system killed 3 flashes within the time i had them. I never had a flash go bad before using them.



Ditto! They worked hard for me and worked flawlessly, until I mounted a TT5 under them, then I would gett all sorts of crap even on camera. 

Now it's all Odin-love and greatness


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 10, 2012)

Interesting how 1.5 oear old threads come to life. Nothing wrong with it I guess.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 10, 2012)

DONT POP YOUR FLASHES A MILLION TIMES AT FULL POWER.


----------



## pixyl (Sep 10, 2012)

Lawliet said:


> pixyl said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering: are these two items regular off-the-shelf electronic components available from just about any electronics supplier at low cost or are they made to custom specs by Canon only making them hard and expensive to replace yourself?
> ...



I think I found it! According to the "580EX II failure report" by LPA designs (Pocket Wizard) they identify the IGBT as:

_The testing quickly revealed that an IGBT (transistor) within the flash is damaged. This part is made by 
Renesas (part # RJP4301)._

I looked up the Renesas website and found several versions of the RJP-4301 so I'll probably have to physically open up a 580EX II if/when needed in order to identify the exact component number. I didn't find anything about the xenon tube other than Canon having the complete tube/reflector assembly available as a spare part. I do however see that you can buy xenon tubes on their own at ebay for around US$ 10 (search for"canon 580ex II xenon tube" at ebay) though I don't know these are "genuine replacements" or just odd xenon tubes, possibly with other specs.
Oh, I also came across the 580EX II service manual! I've taken a quick peek and it actually includes the schematics in addition to all sorts of interesting info (including how to discharge the (possibly lethal) charged capacitors.


----------

