Canon Digital Rebel Hacked Into A Pseudo-10D 585
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?"
hacking a camera?!??? (Score:5, Funny)
Can artificial, marketing-driven, barriers last? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can artificial, marketing-driven, barriers last (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Can artificial, marketing-driven, barriers last (Score:3, Insightful)
Time to buy. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Time to buy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Time to buy. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Time to buy. (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll be wanting a Nikon F4 then
But seriously, when you hire a photographer, you aren't paying for someone to point the camera and press the shutter button. You're paying for someone to take the responsibility for delivering pictures. For a one-time event like a wedding, a photographer simply can't risk equipment failure. A photographer working away from civilization, such as a nature photographer or a photojournalist, simply can't risk equipment failure. That's why these people are willing to pay $5000 or more for the EOS-1D and the like.
The people buying the 10D are the ones who can't justify the cost of a 1D, but need more reliability than a consumer model can give them. Maybe they like to travel a lot for example. The people buying the 300D won't have reliability near the top of the priorities. That's not to say that the 300D is necessarily flimsy, but it's just not built to take abuse. Canon made no secret that the sensor in the 300D is exactly the same as the one in the 10D, and unlike Nikon, all EF lenses work perfectly with all EOS bodies, so image quality isn't a reason to choose between them.
It's not that simple (Score:3, Insightful)
That and the price difference between 10D and 300D add up to quite a lot.
Re:It's not that simple (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, one little complaint---The zoom ring on the 55-200 doesn't move as smoothly as I'd like, which can make it a
Stickin' it to the man (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stickin' it to the man (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Stickin' it to the man (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it could also be argued that this is driving people to the 300D because they can get professional features at an amateur price just means that canon gets more sales anyway, right?
Both are "ProSumer" cameas really... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
You Recall Incorrectly (Score:5, Informative)
The 10D and the 300D/Rebel have the same sensor. And the sensor is a CMOS not CCD chip.
See the review here. [dpreview.com]
Steve
Re:Both are "ProSumer" cameas really... (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like it's a 1.6 as well.
You confuse the 10D and the 1D (Score:3, Insightful)
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/
Re:Stickin' it to the man (Score:3, Informative)
No, they'll get the 10D, or they'll already have it. A lot of pros skipped the 1Ds because of the weight - if you need to lug around 3 lenses + body weight starts to become an issue. The 1Ds was a studio camera, and a lot of people stayed with the 10D which is an excellent all-arounder. Heck, some of my photopro buddies still use the Canon D60.
Re:Stickin' it to the man (Score:4, Interesting)
Despite what conceded slashdot'rs think, average camera nerds can indeed find links on the internet and are also capable of following simple instructions.
This will most certainly hurt sales of the 10D. Many people are more than willing to give up a metal body to save $500!
A different market (Score:3, Insightful)
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 w
Ah... the first of a start. (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it's breaking these artifical barriers to make full use of hardware you paid for that a crime in our society.
Re:Ah... the first of a start. (Score:5, Insightful)
By what rationale? Neither "crippling" by the manufacturer, nor "uncrippling" by the end user should be a crime. Making either illegal is sheer idocy.
Re:Ah... the first of a start. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ah... the first of a start. (Score:3, Informative)
Not true. 10D has pentaprism viewfinder 300D has a pentamirror. There is nothing to direct the image to the sensor. Both have mirror in front of the sensor to direct image to the viewfinder, thus both have mirror slap. 10D only has mirror lock up feature to alliviate it.
The 10D has a hefty magnesium c
Re:Ah... the first of a start. (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be nothing preventing me from altering the software on the camera I bought. It's like telling me I can't write notes in the book I bought because it's not licensed for it. I don't agree to license the software in the camera btw, I buy the camera.
Re:Ah... the first of a start. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not in this case, I fear. Microsoft's satanic EULAs derive their dark power from the fact that, if I wish to use their software, I must first copy it - from their CD to my hard disk, and from my hard disk to my RAM. This violates Microsoft's copyright, and so (it is argued) I need to obtain a licence from them in order to do this.
But when I use the software installed on a chip in a camera, what copy am I making? None. So I do not need any licence from Canon to use their software - I physically own this one instance of it, and since I am not copying it then I am not infringing Canon's copyright.
Re:Ah... the first of a start. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it doesn't:
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 of the United States Code:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a
I, don't know (Score:3, Funny)
No worries! (Score:4, Insightful)
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 $$.
Re:No worries! (Score:3, Insightful)
But you're a fool if you buy any equipment and put implicit trust in it, even if it came pristine from the manufacturer.
When you buy something you have to depend on, you test it out. Many times. Under all possible conditions that you may need it for.
You only need your equipment to fail once in a clutch situation to learn this lesson.
Flip side: apply the hack, and test out your equipment. If it works, that's fabul
Failed Equipment this week (Score:3, Informative)
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 b
Re:No worries! (Score:5, Insightful)
Programming Labour (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Not 100% the same (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Not 100% the same (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not 100% the same (Score:3, Informative)
That said, I don't go around dropping it all over the place.
BTW, just for everyone who thinks this is going to ruin your camera.. all it does is flip a couple bits from saying "don't display this menu" to "do display this menu". All the code for the
Re:Not 100% the same (Score:4, Interesting)
It is to some people. My friend (still is my friend) drove over my Canon EOS Elan 7, which has a magnesium frame. the lens was toast and was ripped off the camera.
The camera, however, could still rewind the film and could still pop the flash out. When i brought it into the shop, they were amazed that not only did all the electronics still work and were calibrated, the film plane was still in alignment with the lens! One of the things that made the difference was it's metal construction: if the lens bayonet had been polycarbonate (as it is on the rebels) then likely the camera would have just pulled apart, but as it is metal, i lost a cheap lens.
try running over a rebel with a car.
Re:Not 100% the same (Score:3, Interesting)
And I still use my Canon A-1 from 1981 as my primary 35mm camera because it never lets me down. And I have a CanonScan FS4000US film scanner as well.
BUT, when they pull this kind of crap of crippling products simply so that they can turn on more features and charge much higher prices, it makes me consider that I don't want to buy from them again in the futur
Incorrect (Score:3, Informative)
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
Please. (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a film SLR with 90% [canon.com]. 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.
Server's Slow, So Here's a Synopsis (Score:5, Informative)
Firmware update instructions from Canon [canon.jp]
10D Instruction Manual [powershot.com] (PDF file)
Latest Firmware from Wasia [cat.orc.ru]
(Wasia is apparently the pseudonym of the Russian hacker who has developed all these goodies.)
Wasia's site is here:
http://satinfo.narod.ru/ [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
Software not as vulnerable (Score:3, Interesting)
Overclocking? (Score:3, Insightful)
~Berj
Nice marketing technique (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Crying Crockadile Tears! (Score:3, Insightful)
It can only be a good thing for Cannon too?
From the Dilbert Princliple (1996) (Score:4, Insightful)
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 ?
Re:From the Dilbert Princliple (1996) (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect it'll remain so because typically the company doesn't care about the 4 people who actually use the software to unlock the additional features of their lower end hardware (Voiding any warranties in the process.)
Re:From the Dilbert Princliple (1996) (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the point is more that you can sell it to them immediately when the want it -- a kind of corporate impulse shopping.
If I know that adding more CPUs is going to require ordering them, arranging downtime, bringing the machine down, physically installing the CPUs, bringing it back up and hoping nothing broke then I might think twice, and try to
Not a huge impact... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Ummmm (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Like those old caller ID boxes (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Like those old caller ID boxes (Score:3, Informative)
A practice as old as time (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Rife in the photocopier game... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Oh please, this does not make a Rebel into a 10d (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
No security, only opportunity (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Wow take some marketing courses... or read (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
One obvious fact is missing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One obvious fact is missing (Score:3, Interesting)
I decided to get a 300D on their reccomendation when I decided to get more serious about photography. It was the cheapest, easist way to get into the Canon lens system.
I don't have a problem with this.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Still not a 10D (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Nikon, too (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
An even simpler example: License changes (Score:3, Informative)
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.
1987 Zenith VCR was like this (Score:3, Interesting)
==>Lazn
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Informative)
No, in fact, ALL of the MD recorders have features disabled through software. SCMS copy protection anyone?
Re:Little Nits (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Informative)
The most important link is this one:
http://ravn.net/md/ [ravn.net]
But maybe you'll find these interesting too:
http://www.minidisct.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&t hreadid=13149 [minidisct.com]
http://home.kabelfoon.nl/~bertrik/netmd/mdhack.htm l [kabelfoon.nl]
http://forums.minidisc.org/viewtopic.php?t=5&start =195 [minidisc.org]
Shush, shush, all of you! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm all for artificially imposed limitations, owning both a Minidisc player and a Radeon 9800SE [ocfaq.com]. 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.
Re:Shush, shush, all of you! (Score:3, Interesting)
The point of this discovery is not that you can get a higher-end product for cheaper if you know a few tricks.
It's that companies are selling the masses crippled products that are identical to their high-end line but for some software lockout. Assuming they can sell the crippled item at a lower cost and still make a profit, there's no reason they couldn't sell the full-featured version at the same price and still make a profit.
Consumers are getting the shaft any time they buy these crippled p
Re:Shush, shush, all of you! (Score:3, Insightful)
Lot of shafts going around ATM
Re:Shush, shush, all of you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes and no. Clearly Cannon can still make a per-unit profit on selling the less expensive camera, but they still have to recover their engineering costs. For cutting edge technology, those are probably non-trivial.
Cannon no doubt developed a strategy for repaying them based on selling X number of full-featured units at a high price, and Y crippled units at a low price.
The whole reason for releasing products with intentionally crippled functionality (which in the electronics world goes back at least to Intel's 486SX, and probably much further) is to minimize engineering overhead by not having to design a new product. While it seems ridiculous to us to sell a product with important features disabled, its a very natural side effect of the economies of scale that the electronics industry has created. That is, it's cheaper to make a million of the same chip, and break half of them, then to make half a million of two separate designs.
Put yet another way: You can bitch all you want, but if Cannon hadn't been able to release the crippled camera, they might not have made the thing in the first place.
Re:Shush, shush, all of you! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't deny that. BUT, it's not about whether it's cheaper to produce them, is it? I see it as a question of how the manufacturer believes they can best maximize their revenue.
To do this, they produce a high end version which they sell at a premium price to a limited customer base. To protect that price point, they also sell a dumbed down/crippled version of the same product
Re:Shush, shush, all of you! (Score:5, Insightful)
> Instead should have a $200 Photoshop for everyone.
Excellent post. You really made me question some of my thinking on the subject.
Have you considered, however, that adding back all of that crippled functionality can actually be a *negative* to many consumers? I have a friend who wanted to get a Photoshop-ish paint program to do basic image editing that got no more complicated than cropping and un-red-eyeing digital photos and a little messing around with scanning. He was determined to buy something on the level of Photoshop Lite, but I installed Gimp for him since it's more or less the full Photoshop. I was showing him the zillions of features that were available when he said "What the hell is all *that* for? All I want to do is send pictures to my mother!" Ignoring the whole commercial vs. open source aspect of it, I think there's a very large group of consumers out there who really *don't* want the full versions of products. If you get out of the hacker mindset then there really *is* such a thing as too much power / too many options. By just selling one version of Photoshop / Office with every function enabled, how many sales will actually be *lost?*
Also consider the fact that enabling those few added functions are what suddenly makes a product / software package go from being a "thing to use a little around the house" to "a professional tool to use to earn a living." How much of the value of a camera or imaging software comes from what that product represents in future income to the consumer? Does that make the product worth more money? Should the added value of those few menu options be ignored since they're essentially just a switch flipped in the compiler? I think your questions about luxury and high-quality are good, but one man's "high quality" is another man's "too damned complicated!"
Re:Shush, shush, all of you! (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. I had to "hack" the crippled Windows Server 2003 to accept multiple connections by telling it I had 1000 licenses in the License Manager. The product is exactly the same, but with this one little tweak I got just as much functionality as I would have with the much higher priced, 1000-CAL product.
Shouldn't I be able to buy one, non-crippled version without jumping through these hoops? It's unconsionable.
TW
Re:Shush, shush, all of you! (Score:3, Informative)
I realize this will probably be an unpopular opinion here, but your post ignores the fact that we do live in a capitalist economy, and as such a company is entitled, nay, expected to charge as much as the market will bear. I don't like getting the shaft any more than you do, but it's never been about the cost of making the product -- it's always been about the perceived value to the consumer. If the consumer views the extra features
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:4, Funny)
That big ass spoiler, adds 20 hp.
That unpainted body kit on your riced out civic. 10 hp, but it looks like crap, IMHO.
And who the heak thought a coffee can made a good exahust sound?
-Grump
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Informative)
Many vehicles out there have the same exact engine and drivetrain, but have timing and whatnot adjusted via computer, one to give better fuel consumption, the other to givemore power.. and the manufactuere advertises one as 120HP engine, and one as 150HP. Same, exact, engine.
Also, the timing on many vehicles is adjusted for a certain low grade of fuel (Even if that low grade isn't the lowest grade available).... making the decision to ALWAYS run on a higher octane fuel, and tuning the timing to take that into account can give you a nice increase in power.
Add to that cars with servo controlled turbo wastegates (if I recall correctly).. boost pressure can also be increased (or decreased, for better fuel efficiency) on the fly.
There are numerous ways to tweak a modern computerized engine management system.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:4, Informative)
Some examples:
Audi A3 150 hp to 180 hp, depending on country of sales
Audi A4 163 hp and 190(?) hp
VW Golf GTI 150 hp
Skoda Octavia 150 hp, RS has 180 but with different hardware.
Seat Leon 150hp to 180 hp.
Seat Toledo 180 hp
And more....
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a modern car where something similar cannot be done? My Jeep could have 50+ more hp if I wanted it too, but it would take the whole tank of gas to get to the end of my driveway. All manufacturers tune their engine to find a good balance between fuel economy, handling, and power. Just because that balance can be adjusted does not mean that the manufacturer has been ripping us off.
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:3, Informative)
The example requested earlier in this thread is right here: VW uses the 1.8T engine in the Audi TT as well and detunes the VW version so you'll pay more for the admittedly just as pretty (I think Golfs look great) but less practical (GTIs and Golfs can hold a huge amount of stuff) Audi.
While the chip can cause you trouble when getting service (for which reason APR designs many of th
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
Many cars that are imported from other markets, or must serve a single market (domestically) that may require different standards in different areas (emissions from state to state, with California being the most notorious), lead automakers to "play it safe" many times, and go with what will work in the most markets possible. So this would mean selling cars that adhere to California's emissions standards in states that would allow for less restricti
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, BMW has programmed the gearbox for maximum clutch and tire life - that is, it lets out the clutch slowly at low RPMs to reduce wear and tear on the clutch and not cause any wheelspin. However, when racing, clutch and tire life are secondary to getting a quick start - thus, you can use this easter egg to do the equivalent of popping the clutch on a straight manual tranny. Of course, I'm sure that the fact you've done this is recorded all over the ECU, and if you bring in the car for a warranty clutch replacement at 10,000 miles, the dealer will have some pointed questions to ask. Technology, as always, marches on ;).
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
My Comcast cablebox (motoral model unknown, somewhere from c.1992) is a POS. I called Comcast for tech support because my volume was too low
Fast forward some months
This one feature was useful enough for me to keep two different codes for my one cable box on one remote.
I'm still searching for the CC button, like aztec gold.
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:4, Informative)
> for my one cable box on one remote.
Many of the universals are made by one company. Get online and dig around for the advanced programming codes and you can probably merge the volume codes from one set to the set that works everything else and have a seamless experience with only one cable button. And if you are lucky enough to have one with the JP1 header (or solder pads for a plug) you are set for some serious modding.
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, but that was intentional. I think your nephew has been hacking around in Emacs behind your back...
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
When HP orignally launched their Laserjet 8L, they were having trouble generating enough sales for the product. I'm not sure why, but perhaps it was because a lot of the desktop publishing market at the time belonged to Apple, who had the Laserwriter out on the market. That's neither here nor there, though.
The 8L could do, IIRC something like 10 or 11 ppm. So HP took the 8L, and through the use of a slightly different gearing, produced the 4L, which was nearly identical except for a slower print-rate, somewhere in the 5 ot 6 ppm range, which was still quite nice for the time. They sold the 4L for about half of what the 8L went for. All of a sudden, they were selling a huge amount of 4Ls, but there were also a ton of companies that realized that a 4L wouldn't be enough for their branch office, or whatever, so they purchased the "upgraded" 8L, instead. Enterprising users could, presumably, order the gear set (and whatever associated parts went with the actual 8L) and "hard mod" their 4L into an 8L.
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:3, Informative)
There was no HP 8L. In fact, there was never anything over a 6 in that numbering scheme. The new models are in the thousands.
I'm guessing you're thinking of a 4M/4MP. Those were similar printers to the 4L and were about double the price. They, however, had more differences than just print speed. They would do 600 DPI (4L only does 300dpb), and, I believe, had better paper tray options. The 4L holds very little paper -- 100 pages maybe?
That said, my 4L is still kick
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Funny)
The Nissan Sentra has the same engine and frame as the more expensive 200SX, but for the life of me I can't find the software hack to change the body panels of my sentra.
Re:It's crap like this that... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
What are you talking about? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 o
Re:Who Should Be Angry? (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Who Should Be Angry? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Is it the right thing to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Should be considered fraud. (Score:5, Informative)
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