Slashdot Mirror
Canon Digital Rebel Hacked Into A Pseudo-10D
Reverb9 writes "When Canon introduced the Digital Rebel, the world's first entry-level Digital SLR camera, many remarked on its similarities to the 10D , its $500 more expensive big brother. In fact, the two cameras share much of the same technology and so Canon implemented a number of software-based limitations to avoid destroying sales of the professional-oriented 10D. Now, a new hack that restores a previously hidden menu along with a few additional tricks has added nearly all of those 10D features to the Rebel, with an arguably superior user interface to boot. Canon has so far said little on the hack but certainly cannot be happy with its potential effect on sales. This is, however, a reality that more corporations are having to confront. In an era where programming labour is relatively cheap and computer connectivity more frequent can artificial, marketing-driven, barriers between technology products, last?"
just how many other devices have similar "hidden" features, just waiting to be hacked. I suspect it's a lot.
picture that...
Yes, when they're enforced by the DMCA and jail sentences for those who reverse-engineer them. (Remember DeCSS? The outcry over DeCSS was just a preview; things are going to get a lot worse, not better.)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I've been meaning to buy the Digital Rebel/300D ever since it was released, but somehow was held back by the lack of the Mirror Lockup feature. Now that this hack enables that feature, I think I'll go pick one of these babies up very soon. I already have a nice collection of Canon EF and EF L lenses that the 300D can take.
Canon has so far said little on the hack but certainly cannot be happy with its potential effect on sales.
That arguement is rediculous. What part of Canon's market that will shell out for that camera will apply this hack? Probably almost none of it, if they can find it or understand it. So that leaves the likes of the slashdot crowd, and that really isn't a big enough group to put a dent into Canon's sales.
Seriously, why would they not have completely removed the code or made it buggy on purpose just to protect themselves? Owners of this camera can rejoice this time but I am sure that next time Canon won't make the same mistake...
This will be happening a lot in the future... it's a good thing though, if they can make a product more powerful for that amount of money than they should do so. Marking up the same hardware and because you don't have artifical barriers on it should be a crime...
Unfortunately, it's breaking these artifical barriers to make full use of hardware you paid for that a crime in our society.
I touch computers in naughty places
But, the article, submitter, sure has a thing, for commas.
The Canon 10D is aimed at pros, and what pro would actually rely on a "hack" to turn their Rebel into a 10D? These guys have to be able to trust their cameras completely and having hacked firmware will degrade that trust, no matter what the 1337 h4x0r community says.
Besides, what will happen to these pros when the next Canon firmware obliterates this hack? If the firmware provides needed fixes that they can't get without losing their "Rebel/10D", they're going to be mighty unhappy.
So I doubt Canon will be too worried about this: their target audience for the 10D isn't the hack-using geekerati, it's professionals. People who rely on their cameras aren't about to compromise reliability just to save a (relatively) few $$.
It's not necesarily that programming labour is cheap. I'm my opinion, the increase in connectivity has lead to an increase in efficiency, whereby the same code gets reapplied to many more applications than before the onset of the Internet.
IMO, the per hour cost of programming labour has not really changed. The cost of programming labour, per unit produced, has dropped.
Just to mention that the 10D does have different hardware, so this hack won't give all features,
notably the faster frames per second and frames that are buffered.
The EOS-300D will shoot 4 frames at 2.5 frames per second and the EOS-10D will shoot 9 frames at 3 frames per second.
Also, the EOS-300D has a cheap-feeling plastic body while the EOS-10D has a black magnesium body.
Firmware update instructions from Canon
10D Instruction Manual (PDF file)
Latest Firmware from Wasia
(Wasia is apparently the pseudonym of the Russian hacker who has developed all these goodies.)
Wasia's site is here:
http://satinfo.narod.ru/
Some more info from the linked page:
There are a bunch of other neat tips on that site, but they aren't directly related to this story, and so I haven't re-posted them here.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
In this particular case the hack involved restoring some capabilities, which while present in the hardware, had been locked or hidden by software. Certainly this individual deserves his due for circumventing the software barriers. However, in software products it is much easier to simply leave sections of code out of the finished build in the lesser versions. If the functionality is not there in the first place then no amount of unlocking will enable it. This incident raises important issues about the sale and marketing of technology products, especially in the digital camera market. It is my opinion that the industry has vastly underestimated the demand among consumers for more powerful "professional" grade digital cameras. It would probably make more sense from both a business and technology standpoint to offer the full camera at a price which is higher than the basic entry level model, but less than the full "professional" model since most of the work was probably in the design of the hardware and software and not as much in the manufacturing. People are generally willing to pay for a well built product as long as they know that the quality is there.
CPU manufacturers have been doing this for a long time - if a chip tests at a high speed but they need more "value" low-speed chips, they'll mark it as slower and crank it down. There have been ways to overclock CPUs (not just things like FSB tweaks but hardware mods on the cpu that make it think it's a faster version) from way back. Intel's only concern is people mass-marketing the slower cpus as faster ones, not individuals OCing their chips.
~Berj
Common, I'm sure Canon had a sense that this was going to happen, eventually. The only question was 'WHEN'. Just like lots of 'trial' versions of software either have a 15day evaluation, and/or some things removed, there's usually always a 'crack' that will re-implement these things. Anyways, just like intel and many (or nearly ALL) of their CPUs in a certain chunk of their roadmap, are the same. Anyways, this could have been a good move for Canon, moving the Canon-10D (EXCELLENT camera, I own one) into more of the consume price range, resulting in more sales!
1. Build a product out of [price] reach for most consumers;
2. Charge a more realistic price for a 'feature reduced' version;
3. Watch as it gets hacked;
4. Then watch sales climb high as people begin to believe (under false pretences) that they have got 'one over' on the company - people love a free ride or a good 'bargain'.
I like it!
It can only be a good thing for Cannon too?
--
"we live in a post-ideological world..." - Billy Bragg.
Scott,
Here's a mindboggling stupid idea from our Marketing Department that you might be able to use. We make [type of machine]. A new version of our product is both cheaper and faster. A great breakthough, right?
Well marketing wants Engineering to slow the unit down so they have a low cost unit to sell. Then sell them upgrades to full speed at an enormous price. These would be physically identical, just one would have the code messed up on purpose to run slow.
So does this mean [type of machine] = Digital Cameras ?
I doubt this particular hack will have too big an impact... Most features does not mean all features, and there are hardware differences.
It doesn't necessarily mean that any significant number of people are going to do it, either. Look at CPU overclocking for example... Both Intel and AMD allow it, so it obviously isn't hurting the sales of their high-end parts too much. Even considering retail seperate from OEM. If they felt like they could make significantly more money by locking the multipliers and FSB, they certainly would have done so many generations ago.
The other thing to consider with Canon is the costs involved... To modify the cheaper model enough to make this impossible would probably cost them more than they will lose with this hack out in the open.
A Rebel turned into a 10D, you're still missing a few of the features but for all the R&D that went into the 10D, the pictures I've seen come out of one makes it worth its price rather than buying a 300D/Rebel and hacking it.
R&D and all things that it took to develop the 10D, Canon definitely deserves the extra they charge for it. As much as I or anyone else wants something for nothing, these cameras are not outrageously priced and I believe it a fair price they ask for it.
I can't get to the article so I have no idea what the hack is, but if it's a matter of firmware, I think they should have pulled a Handspring and used ROMs rather than PROMs in the Rebel.
That's funny ... I remember DeCSS. My friend had the T-shirt. I read and loved the haiku.
I also remember how thousands of hackers won out in the end, and have libdvdcss and libdvdread installed on their systems. And remember how DVD-Jon was aquitted? Twice? That was sweet.
It's too bad that the DMCA brought us all down in the end. Every day i lament the fact that I can't download pirated movies off the internet before they're released in the theatre, and that I also can't watch dvd's on my computer.
It really sucks.
Way back when, the local phone company shipped out these cheap caller ID boxes when you ordered new service. They sent the lowest end model, which only shows the name and had ~50 number memory.
:P
One day bored, I opened the box up and found that there was *1* soider point that would upgrade it to "name" caller ID, and 200+ more number memory.
The difference in price bewteen the 2 models was like $40.
Honestly, I don't think many people will do this change to upgrade there camera. Personally, I wouldn't becuase those damn things are expensive compaired to my $100 digital camera
until (succeed) try { again(); }
It is an artifact of the need to standardize board layouts, processors, hardware and designs for mass production. Its also a direct tribute to the greed of companies who wouldn't offer their customers the best possible product possible.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Saving $500 is quite a lot, I'll bet a number of normal people figure out how to apply this hack with detail instructions from message boards and the like.
I really thought it was odd of Canon to differentiate the software at all - they should haver just kept the price differential to a resnable cost for a sturdier body.
Both are really prosumer cameras, I think people shopping for one would be thinking about the other - like you say, the real difference is when you are going for a 1D or a 1Ds.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Many other photocopier models offering different speeds were identical except for the controller boards, and swapping those over wasn't uncommon either; in fact, at one stage the distributor used to officially sanction it because the manufacturer was screwing them over.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
If I knew how to effectively fight those bastards, I would!
The Communist countries are that-a-way --->
Seriously.
There is no such thing as a "fair price"; consult the relevant economics theory to learn why, which won't fit in a Slashdot post. If people are buying it, with a fair choice on a open market (and if anybody replies to this message as if I didn't include that clause I will mercilessly mock you), then the price is fair. No other definition makes sense.
The idea of the market value of an item being the cost of labor to produce it went out with the 17th century, and unless you want to return to a 17th century economy, I suggest that we leave that idea safely in the dust bin of history, where it belongs.
From everything I've seen about the Rebel, it is a much more cheaply made piece of equipment. "As a professional" I would consider the more robust design of the 10D (which is due for a replacement/update by the way) to make it a superior camera, for reasons unrelated to the chip set and its functions. Furthermore, as a professional, I am considering the Rebel as a backup digital body, without any hacking. It just doesn't look like a good bet for a high use high reliability camera, although it has its potential uses. But even with functions hacked, it is unlikely to equal a 10d.
As for the "propriety" of crippling functionality, get a clue. The fact that a company can give something away at no cost doesn't mean that it is evil if it doesn't.
Look at it this way: The price for the low function and high function products is probably lower (over time, ceteris parabus, etc. etc.) because the development cost is amortized over a larger market which includes the low and high function products instead of just the high function products.
Of course the company could distribute the benefits of the larger manufacturing run to different market segments depending on compeitition... but somewhere, if the market is competitive, the consumer is a winner, if the company can sell more of those chips by crippling some of them.
Think about it.
I know a lot of companies are going to get upset about people doing a kind of arbitrage pricing. Enough other people have ranted about that.
A more interesting point is the positive opportunity this offers for camera manufacturers. Who will be first to ship a programmable and hackable camera, with at least partially open source firmware?
I don't think it's such a crazy idea. There is a fair degree of overlap between digital camera buyers and programmers, or at least people likely to have access to programmers. A pro photographer or press agency might well want to invest a couple of days of programmer time to add some feature they really need. I'm imagining something like the old HP programmable calculators.
There are some ugly edges in the UI of my Minolta camera. It's a great camera in many ways, and the problems are perhaps not serious enough to warrant an official patch from Minolta. But they could be fixed purely in software, and if it were reasonably easy to change it I might do it myself.
There are a few issues you'd need to sort out: hopefully the software shouldn't be able to physically damage the camera, and there needs to be some way to easily get back to the default if you screw it up. I don't think those are impossible to overcome.
What could you add?
- rebind keys to suit the features you most often use
- digital effects on the camera, such as multiple-exposure
- capture coordinates from a GPS or notes from a PDA by bluetooth
- better downsampling
- Probably many more I haven't thought of yet. Look at all the diverse things people have done with Palm devices or MP3 players.
The potential of programmable devices is much larger than even the best hardcoded device.
Some of the stuff in this thread is just insane. And far and beyond normal idiocy.
1.Since this camera was announced we knew it would be hacked it was just a matter of time.
2.Canon knew it would be hacked.
3.If you only knew how many times products are crippled/disabled and priced lower so that high end stuff still sells? anyone remember 3.5 single sided floppies? Companies do what is in there own best interest.. err in the stockholders best interest. Do some of you really think Canon is doing this to pull one over on you? No they are doing what will make the most money for their shareholders.
4.I think the anaology to overclocking is not valid. Chips are clocked at set speeds becuase they are stable at that speed, If AMD/Intel sold the 2.4 rated chip as a 3.0 which it is in some cases IDENTICAL, people would complain since the 2.4 rated chips can't really handle those speeds and crash. AMD and Intel love overclockers cuz they buy more chips then anyone else, since they fry things all the time.
5.All in all this will not really affect 10d sales, for all the reasons listed above, stability, ability to interface with higher end equipment, better case, higher quality parts, and certain features that the 300d can't so at all.
6.300d sales will go up since this just became the geek camera of the year.
Also on a side note no one has mentioned that people have been hacking the Canon lenses to get more f-stops and zoom out of them for awhile. Canon restricts some lenses since the quality becomes adversly affected at min and max. So some people have removed the stops and taken the quality hit for more versitility.
---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
You're saying that this camera has no market because the average person wouldn't spend this kind of money on a camera? Well it's not meant for the average consumer. They have the rebel for that. This is a professional model.
Is this something new? A professional model camera that is expensive but worth every penny to a professional photographer.
"Sorry cannon, $1500 to take a picture?"
What about "sorry mercedes, $75,000 to drive to Taco Bell"?
You're argument is baseless because you're implying canon only makes expensive $1500 cameras when this is clearly wrong. Companies like canon have been in photography for years and their higher price comes with years of quality and service.
Or you were joking, I can't tell. It's too late for sarcasm.
The biggest difference between 300D/Kiss Digital/Digital Rebel and the D70 is that the former is a lower-level model of the 10D, while the latter is more of a replacement for the D100. Nikon didn't place asinine limitations on the D70 like Canon did to their low-cost DSLR.
Er. No.
Canon said, 'we'll give you this camera here, with magnesium body and huge feature set, for X dollars.'
Then Canon said, 'alternately we'll give you this other camera here, with plastic body, and extensive but smaller feature set, for X minus five hundred dollars.'
Canon was quite open about advertising that there were significant similarities. The sensor and a lot of the electronics are essentially the same. The more expensive camera has a more durable body, can shoot multiple frames faster, has a higher maximum shutter speed, and a few other goodies. Canon never said anything about there being entirely different firmware on the two models.
When you buy the camera, what are you paying for? The advertised set of features. What did Canon give you for your money? The advertised set of features. Why are they lying, again?
~Idarubicin
That and the price difference between 10D and 300D add up to quite a lot.
Software hacks and the price differential of a few hundred bucks are fairly irrelevant when the camera's power can really only be unleashed with pro lenses costing $1500 or $2000 (and up) rather than the cheap crap lens that comes with a stock Rebel unit. It's not uncommon for a serious photog to have tens of thousands of bucks invested in lenses. Do you really think that this sort of pro would balk at the 10D's price and get a hacked Rebel instead?
That's not exactly "high tech", you can get the same effect by adding a bleed valve in the pressure line to the wastegate diaphragm for a dollar's worth of parts from the hardware store.
You can also disconnect the wastegate actuator and maybe get an extra 100HP for a few moments.
The problem with this kind of mod is that folks see how easily the turbo controls can be modified and think "a little is good so more is better", leading to melted pistons, blown head gaskets (if you're lucky), etc. Sometimes these things are programmed conservatively so that next year's model can boast ten more horsepower, sometimes it's because there's an inherent weakness in the engine or transaxle and they don't want to have to do a lot of warranty work.
Often these power increases come at the expense of reduced engine life, like turning up the voltage going to a light bulb to get brighter light where 10% more light can equal 50% less life expectancy.
One thing though, the 1.8 makes 250HP stock? That doesn't seem right (just going by your figure of 25HP being a 10% increase).
Putting moderation advice in your
Oh give me a break.
Does the camera not do something it was advertised as being able to do? Didn't think so. The product can be modified to have functionality it was never advertised or claimed as having. That is what you call false advertising?
As far as your claims about single-sided floppy disks. Yes, you could usually notch the other side. What you were paying for with a DS disk was the fact that the other side had gone through testing and was covered under the warranty.
If one side of media failed QA, do you think it was scrapped? Hell no. It was put in the 'sell only as single-sided' bin.
If some or most of the disks in that box had passed QA on both sides...So what? This was back in the days when disks cost enough that you would take advantage of the warranty if one was defective. Only covering one side under warranty makes the product cost less to sell.
In the early 90's we went through the same thing with HD 1.44 disks...Yeah, cutting a hole in it would usually make it work for high density use. One to two years later, I noticed that of the disks that failed...Most were 'converts'.
Do you think a manufacturer is going to cover a disk under warranty after you have cut a hole in it? Hello no, nor should they. Do you think risking losing a disks worth of data is worth saving a couple of bucks for a business? Hello no. Was it worth it to you or I for copying our games and stuff? Hell yes.
Often times it's cheaper for a manufacturer to do this.
I mean, they've already got production on the higher end model. It's a professional unit and is in line with competition prices.
So, they swap out some metal with plastic, remove some features in software, and sell the camera for a lower priced segment.
It's likely that they wouldn't have been able to do that at all if they had to design a whole new unit from the ground up for the lower market segment. It would have been too expensive for all the R&D and the new production line. In the end, the new lower cost model would have cost too much.
So what would you rather have? An inexpensive camera mostly based from a high end model or a low end camera built from the ground up and costs more with less quality parts?
I think it's an acceptable practice and it works out for the consumer in the end. Better product and less money.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I also bought my 10D for reasons more than software/firmware capabilities. I knew the 300D (Digital Rebel) was crippled in some ways, including focus modes, but I still prefer the 10D for its overall build quality, the 10D has a magnesium-alloy body as opposed to the 300D's plastic body.
Other issues include the 300D's increased "mirror slap" which can cause some camera shake, not good for those long exposures. Also a slower shutter time and longer viewfinder blackout time.
This isn't to say the 300D isn't a good body, it's going to do wonders for those aspiring pros who can't quite afford higher end gear yet, but it still isn't a 10D.
------------ Ben Chroneos
I believe the 10D also has a larger viewfinder (92% versus 86% for the 300D)
/. 'pros' would claim. Mostly it's just an attitude problem.
You're joking, right? No camera has 90% viewfinder. Both 10D and 300D have 95%.
Metering is done in the software, so it should be about the same if the codebase is the same. Mechanics are different, but the difference is not as big as the
If you want the real thing, go for the 1Ds. Or even the new 1D Mark II. If you don't have the money, stop complaining and get what you can afford.
Anyway, the difference between 10D and 300D is mostly one of the photographer's skill. But it's always easier to blame the tool. How many of the 300D dissers would make half-decent pictures with a classic Leica?
With DeCSS, there was a reasonable argument made that the decrypted data could be copied (and for some reason the defence didn't point out that so could the encrypted data).
The last time the DMCA was used against hardware manufacturers (Chamberlain garage door openers), the case was dismissed.
They DO lock multipliers. It's a pain in the ass actually. I have a P4 2.4ghz chip that runs on the 400mhz bus (100mhz quad pumped) so 24x multiplier. Well my motherboard and RAM can handle 800mhz (200mhz quad pumped), which would give me better performance. No can do though, I'd need to step down to a 12x multiplier and the chip won't allow that.
The reason they don't bus lock is there isn't really a feasable way of doing it. It would require some kind of trickiness with the chip generating it's own internal clock, and doing a comparison, which would never work since external bus speed can vary from one board to teh next natrually.
Professionals aren't likely to want to trust their bread and butter to a hack. They might buy a Rebel as a second body (which they might have anyways), and try the hack on that (as a second body). On the other hand, the few lost sales are likely to be offset by the increased sales that this article on Slashdot is likely to generate.
Case in point: Back when the APEX AD-600A Region hack was referenced on Slashdot, I (and about a half-dozen of my workmates) was one of the many people who went out to buy one specifically for this reason. To give you an idea as to just how likely I was to buy one otherwise: When I got home, I realized that I'd have to get my TV working again (it had died about 2 years previously, and I hadn't been bothered to fix it).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
It is not the same camera. The 300D has a plastic body shell, isn't designed to be as robust as its more expensive rival the 10D.
For serious photography the heavier weight of the 10D helps avoiding camera shake (or atleast it does for most the people I know).
Also the 10D has built in PC socket (no not a PC as in computer - its a flash connector for studio flashes), I doubt the software hack magically opens up a new socket on the side of the body
The 10D has a higher frame rate which implies a larger buffer between the CCD and the flash memory.
Okay, the differences don't add up to $500 but the targeted markets arent the same and so the price does vary.
My film based 30 doesn't have many features above the 300v if you ignore eye control but still costs 200 more - for the features I do get and the better quality build etc I think its worth it.
So in short as the cameras are different beasts for different markets why should Canon be accused of fraud....
The original post to which this is the reply is a typical
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
It's great that libdvdcss et al are still out there, but not a single Linux distro (that I am aware of) ships able to play encrypted DVDs so while you think the hackers won, I say they lost as newcomers to Linux who just try and play a DVD have problems.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Here's a film SLR with 90%. That said, the biggest difference between the 10D and 300D's viewfinder isn't coverage but magnification. With same 50mm lenses, the 10D has a .88x magnification, while the 300D has a .8x. Between the 10% magnification difference and inherently dimmer pentamirror construction, the 10D will be much easier to use.
When I'm shooting for a client, I need two things. I need a camera that won't fail, and I need a second camera. In that respect, if I had Canon lenses and my photography doesn't need the 1D/1D2's speeds or the 1Ds' resolution, the 10D/300D combination might be reasonable, if I can get over the severe difference in usability. No, it's not an "attitude" issue.
Your suggestion to get the 1Ds or the 1D Mark II are asinine, though, if they're looking at $800 and $1,000 bodies. Last I checked, the 1D Mark II costs $6,000, and the 1Ds costs $10,000, not to mention the weight increase from even 10D.
No, the skill will remain constant for a given photographer. However, with better ergonomics and specs of the 10D, you're less likely to miss shots with it than with the 300D. That's the whole point of buying say pro-grade over consumer-grade -- you're more likely to get usable results. Is that worth the price difference? I don't know. Ask your wallet.
I'm all for artificially imposed limitations, owning both a Minidisc player and a Radeon 9800SE. Let's all keep this nice and quiet and pretend we know nothing about the disabled functionality. If we're lucky, they'll keep putting more of said functionality in without charging us for it.
Just purchased a 10D and a 16-35 f2.8L lense (about 2700$ total).
The system locked up during a wedding I was photographing. Why? Water apparently condensed on the contacts in the lense.
The 10D has absolutely the WORST focus on anything other than central point that I have ever seen- and I'm coming from an eight year old A2.
I have shots that would be in focus (you could feel the lense jittering) and then upon depressing the shutter button the focus would jump (out, that is).
All in all I wish I hadn't bought the 10D.
The 10D and the 300D/Rebel have the same sensor. And the sensor is a CMOS not CCD chip.
See the review here.
Steve
Oddly enough, I was thinking about this topic just this morning. My Nikon F5 was worth the multi-kilobuck price tag because it was built like a tank. It'll last for thousands and thousands of rolls of film. But it won't take any better pictures than the cheapest 35mm that Nikon makes.
Pros have always accepted this. A good photographer can take a cheap camera and turn out the same wonderful work he can do with an expensive camera. The difference is that the more expensive camera makes things more convenient and is built better to last longer under the rough conditions pros must endure.
That's why pro cameras are more expensive. They don't *really* have any secret technology that makes better pictures. They're just tougher and more capable of accomplishing a given task more readily under deadline.
But digital changes all that.
When the Nikon D70 appeared, Nikon officially said it wouldn't replace the prosumer D100. However, the D100 immediately dropped out of the sales catalog of several large camera vendors. They know that the cheaper camera will cannibalize the sales of the more expensive one because the cheaper camera, while probably less well built and slightly less convenient, has better image capturing hardware and software. And that's the one thing that will make a pro change cameras faster than you change your shirt; Show 'em something that takes better prictures and everything else be damned, they'll go for the better output quality.
So if you're a pro and you're shooting digital, what do you do? Stick with the better made, more convenient pro cameras? Or just buy the latest cheap thing because it has more megapixels and better quality? The answer is that better quality almost always wins. (Yes, in some situations speed is important and pros will use a lower megazixel count if they get faster shutter response, but that is becoming less and less of an issue every day. Consequently, the Nikon D1 series that was built to capitalize on that need is being marginalized.)
Now, with film, output quality was a constant and pretty static, to boot. Therefore, it made sense for pros to get a camera built to last forever and paying through the nose for it was no big deal. With digital, though, the camera that will be introduced next year will have better image quality than whatever you're holding in your hands now. So what's the point of paying for high-quality construction made to last 20 years? You're gonna wanna dump your camera in two years, tops, to get the better image quality of the new gear.
This turns the whole professional camera selection criteria on its ear. I predict that "pro" digital cameras will soon come to be treated by their users as virtually disposable, something to be used hard for a year and then upgraded. When that happens, pros won't want to pay as much so they'll just buy one more spare than usual.
In the future, cameras will come to be treated as what they have become: computers. The pro photo industry has always taken great pride in their well-built cameras that were made to last a lifetime. (Hell, I still love my Nikon F.) That attitude arose because mechanical refinement was the only market differentiator when everyone uses the same film and gets close to the same output quality. But now digital has changed the rate of change. Now cameras will be obsoleted in months instead of decades. How will the industry adapt? How willing will pros be to give up the snob appeal of their ridiculously expensive cameras and use the same equipment as regular folks? Or will they be so wedded to the need to pay extra money for prestige brands and models that they will continue to pony up big bucks for ridiculously small differences between models?
These are highly interesting times in the photo world. I'm not willing to predict the death of the pro camera, but I predict the pro digital camera of the future will be far close to the what regular consumers use than has previously been the case. And that's a big change.
Yeah. I'm still puzzled why some people prefer to be called disabled instead of handicapped.
Consider Borland's once-flagship product Delphi. You used to be able to buy the standard edition for ~$70 and the professional edition for ~$500. The pro version included some more stuff in it, but it didn't matter for the vast majority of development. Naturally, the $70 product became popular among hobbyist programmers.
Then Borland went and changed the license of the standard edition to prohibit using it for commercial purposes. You couldn't sell software written with it. You couldn't even use it for internal software development at a place of business. They changed the name from "standard" to "personal." At the same time, the upped the price of the professional edition from $500 to over $1000.
Other than the license change, the sofware was the same. But in doing so, you had to pay an additional $930, essentially killing the Delphi hobbyist market.
The 10D also has a crop factor of 1.6, in fact it uses the exact same CCD as the 300D. That's why crippling the software seemed like a wierd choice to me.
The 1D has a crop factor of 1.4, and is also far more expensive. I think that's what you're thinking of, but it's far more than either the 300D or 10D ($4500 at bhphoto.com). That's why it's really in a different category from either the 10D or 300D.
From DPreview.com:
10D sensor:
22.7 x 15.1 mm CMOS sensor
300D sensor:
22.7 x 15.1 mm CMOS sensor
1D/MkII sensor:
28.7 x 19.1 mm CMOS
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My parents VCR that they purchased in 1987 was a cheaper model minus some features of the top of the line VCR. Well my Dad, being the kid of guy he is took it apart for some reason that I no longer remember, and inside found a hidden switch and after moving it, it became the higher end model. We even went and purchased a "replacement" remote for the better model to make some of the new features easier to use.
==>Lazn
You wish. But as it happens, DMCA is about MORE than copyright. (If it's only purpose was to protect copyright, then it wouldn't have had to be a new law). The DMCA outlaws things permitted by copyright.
There's no substantial difference between those two scenarios. You can obviously see that the authorities will come after you in the first case, so why not in the second?