Forums > Photography Talk > $6000 for a firmware update?

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10559

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

-JAY- wrote:

Nobody's mentioning taking firmware from one and putting it on the other.

If they desired, Magic Lantern could add the additional features of the 1DC onto the 1DX... there would be no problems with this.

perhaps you missed the OP?

Oct 08 12 09:50 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

-JAY-

Posts: 6710

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

perhaps you missed the OP?

I read it... Once the firmware gets figured out by a third party (hacked,) they can adapt it as necessary...

Oct 08 12 09:52 pm Link

Photographer

AJ_In_Atlanta

Posts: 12836

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Brian Diaz wrote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Magic Lantern is open source software, not pirated software.  Installing new software onto a legitimately purchased piece of hardware shouldn't be an intellectual property violation, right?  That's like buying a Mac and installing Windows.  Not a big deal.  Or is there another aspect to this that I'm missing?

But try the reverse and put the the Mac OS on a PC and it's a violation.  Regardless it's about paying people for their work, just like we expect our customers to do.  I don't think the price is inline, but I don't think any of Canons prices are inline these days, with the features but it's their right to sell their products.

Oct 08 12 10:03 pm Link

Photographer

Mike Kelcher

Posts: 12895

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
I think it sad that the first post in this thread contains the expectation that the firmware get hacked.  Nobody thought that was a bad thing? Nobody even paid lip service to intellectual property? shame.  our work is out intellectual property.

In the US, partly because of the ideals of the current administration, people with nothing are willing to divide everything amongst everyone. Success is deemed to be evil. The rich should be taxed more, and what's yours is mine. The list goes on. Kudos to you for seeing what should have been obvious. It's sad in a way (for those in the US), that it took a Canadian to point this out.

Oct 08 12 10:16 pm Link

Photographer

Kevin Connery

Posts: 16931

El Segundo, California, US

Vito wrote:
And what software (for a one person license) costs $6000?

I've worked at companies where a single seat license for software ran between $20,000 and $50,000. They heavily discounted to colleges: only $8-10K.

It sold ver well, as it was much less expensive than most of its competitors; they started at over $100K and went up sharply after that.

Oct 08 12 11:44 pm Link

Photographer

Kevin Connery

Posts: 16931

El Segundo, California, US

Moderator Note!

Mike Kelcher wrote:
In the US, partly because of the ideals of the current administration, people with nothing are willing to divide everything amongst everyone. Success is deemed to be evil. The rich should be taxed more, and what's yours is mine. The list goes on. Kudos to you for seeing what should have been obvious. It's sad in a way (for those in the US), that it took a Canadian to point this out.

In the industry forums, partly because of the goals of the site, and partly to reduce the impact of trolls, political rants are strongly discouraged

Oct 08 12 11:50 pm Link

Photographer

MC Photo

Posts: 4144

New York, New York, US

Vito wrote:
And what software (for a one person license) costs $6000?

ProTools.

If you've already spent $15-30k and you want to stay current it's $6k because they require a hardware purchase.


TC Electronics does something interesting. They sell their system 6000 fully loaded, but locked and you can purchase a license or rent a temporary one for the time that you need the additional features.

That could work very well if you have a 1DX and just need the more advanced part for a single job.


There's no difference from relicensing a photo from a job you were paid to shoot. Why should you get paid again if it's already been paid for? Whatever your answer is will apply to Canon.

Oct 09 12 12:46 am Link

Photographer

BZP

Posts: 9

Haarlem, Noord-Holland, Netherlands

Anyway, it's still a bargain compared to the Cinema EOS C500...

Oct 09 12 02:14 am Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10559

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

-JAY- wrote:

I read it... Once the firmware gets figured out by a third party (hacked,) they can adapt it as necessary...

excuse me for a minute while I go adapt some of your photos and post them on the internet.  since you have no problem with the creation of a derivative work in software I am certain you will have no problem with the creation of derivative works of your copyright material smile

Oct 09 12 12:39 pm Link

Photographer

ChanStudio - OtherSide

Posts: 5340

Alpharetta, Georgia, US

Vito wrote:
And what software (for a one person license) costs $6000?

There are enterprise software out there that cost millions of dollars to design/implement before it gets into production.

Oct 09 12 02:45 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Diaz

Posts: 63192

Danbury, Connecticut, US

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

excuse me for a minute while I go adapt some of your photos and post them on the internet.  since you have no problem with the creation of a derivative work in software I am certain you will have no problem with the creation of derivative works of your copyright material smile

Is there evidence that indicates Magic Lantern uses any portions of the original Canon firmware?

Oct 09 12 02:56 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

-JAY-

Posts: 6710

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Brian Diaz wrote:
Is there evidence that indicates Magic Lantern uses any portions of the original Canon firmware?

exactly. ML looks at canon firmware to see how the hardware works, then writes their own original code that will work with that hardware.

Feel free to look at my exif data all you want... Then use that information to see how I might have taken a shot, then make your own.

Oct 09 12 04:07 pm Link

Photographer

KFM Designs

Posts: 685

Flagstaff, Arizona, US

Let me go out on a limb here.

A stock mustang is less than a Saleen mustang right!

Oct 09 12 08:04 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

-JAY-

Posts: 6710

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

KFM Designs wrote:
Let me go out on a limb here.

A stock mustang is less than a Saleen mustang right!

A better comparison would be if a stock mustang was a Saleen with a governor... or something in the computer that just made it a bit less/

Oct 09 12 08:20 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew Iverson Media

Posts: 569

River Falls, Wisconsin, US

Kaouthia wrote:

Or Maya (even before Autodesk bought it out).

I got started in 3d animation back when Maya was $40K, for software. I now feel old. :\

Oct 10 12 02:38 am Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 28014

Dearborn, Michigan, US

-JAY- wrote:

exactly. ML looks at canon firmware to see how the hardware works, then writes their own original code that will work with that hardware.

Feel free to look at my exif data all you want... Then use that information to see how I might have taken a shot, then make your own.

I don't think that is what he said.

Oct 10 12 05:58 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

-JAY-

Posts: 6710

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I don't think that is what he said.

Because he misunderstands what Magic Lantern is all about.

They look at Canon's code to figure out how the mechanics of the camera work.

They then take this information, and from scratch, develop new software.

I think my analogy is much more accurate (though still not perfect) than him stealing my work and selling it...

Oct 10 12 07:32 am Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 28014

Dearborn, Michigan, US

-JAY- wrote:

Because he misunderstands what Magic Lantern is all about.

They look at Canon's code to figure out how the mechanics of the camera work.

They then take this information, and from scratch, develop new software.


I think my analogy is much more accurate (though still not perfect) than him stealing my work and selling it...

This makes sense.

Oct 10 12 07:56 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

-JAY-

Posts: 6710

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

This makes sense.

Yeah, and I don't get the complaints in here about 'cheating canon out' --- they made the firmware. I paid for that firmware, I have just decided to use a better one.

Oct 10 12 08:19 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36396

San Francisco, California, US

-JAY- wrote:
Because he misunderstands what Magic Lantern is all about.

They look at Canon's code to figure out how the mechanics of the camera work.

They then take this information, and from scratch, develop new software.

I think my analogy is much more accurate (though still not perfect) than him stealing my work and selling it...

There is a better analogy.  When IBM first released their PC in 1982, they had a proprietary BIOS.  They didn't lock Microsoft into selling PC-DOS only to them because they thought their BIOS protected them.

Along came Phoenix, then AMI and Award that developed new BIOS which supported the hardware, and thus MS-DOS suddenly became generic.  There was a court battle and IBM lost on the issue.

In a lot of ways, Magic Lantern is conceptually similar except we are dealing with firmware for a camera rather than a PC.

Oct 10 12 09:15 am Link

Artist/Painter

JJMiller

Posts: 627

Buffalo, New York, US

This supposedly also happens in Nvidia gfx cards, they apparently sell the same hardware under different names, but different drivers actually control the performance. Windows also did this back in the day, I think it was windows NT vs windows server.

Oct 10 12 06:14 pm Link

Photographer

Instinct Images

Posts: 22653

San Diego, California, US

-JAY- wrote:

Yeah, and I don't get the complaints in here about 'cheating canon out' --- they made the firmware. I paid for that firmware, I have just decided to use a better one.

I don't see any problem loading Magic Lantern. It's like you said - people simply figured out a way to enable additional features on their camera.

That's not the same as loading Canon firmware for a different model onto your camera in order to avoid paying for the more expensive camera.

Oct 10 12 06:40 pm Link