Significance of 300D Firmware Hacks

[Shortie]

Could not agree more - really made the difference

[fotofactus]

I applaud those guys for doing the hack. Cameras are no longer a piece of hardware; it is a combo of soft- and hardware. I just wish more of the hacker types went after things like the 20D. Sure, you can't hack on the 2.5" screen ala 30D, but certainly things like 1/3 ISO stops should be software modifiable. I hate this "incremental value-added featureset" that these giant corporations try to pass off. What makes it worse is when the same chipset, features are already present in the "lesser" model, yet they are just disabled. What garbage.

It reminds me of the whole seatbelt history. To me, it doesn't take a genius to think about restraints when it comes to safety, but it wasn't till the past 20 or so years that seatbelt usage has become mainstream. Of course, the automobile has been out for nearly 5 times as long. But, the car manufacturers would have you believe that the seatbelt was a wonderful value-added item. BS! It should have been present since the getgo!

Unfortunately, the only way that the consumer can exercise their power is by not buying products, which is balanced precariously with the need to acquire the image, etc., etc.

[JKSeidel]

Originally Posted by bauerman

I think that Canon did the right thing and actually learned from the experience and built the XT accordingly.

I think that perhaps you are giving corporate Canon a bit too much 'humanity' and warmth. One of the reasons the 300D was able to set the price point as low as it did was its reuse of chips from other models. This cut R&D and production ramp-up costs to the bare minimum. Once committed to the Digital Rebel ine, they really didn't have many options to maintain one of the main selling features, value for price. Since all the additional functionality opened up by the hacks was revealed as possible, Canon didn't have much of a choice except to turn a slight embarassment into a positive by enabling those functions themselves in the 350D and proclaiming how many advances had been added to the 350D.

While I agree completely Jared's sentiment about the hacks pushing Canon to activate those functions in the 350D, I personally think Canon's internal motives were a bit more murky and less altruistic. Otherwise Canon would have given a nod to the hacks and issued their own Canon approved firmware update to handle the matter.

[JKSeidel]

Originally Posted by bauerman

I also agree that Canon should have just "sucked it up" and released their own version of a firmware that at least had MLU and FEC enabled....for the crowd of people that to this day are still too leery to change their firmware. They are missing so much!!

One thing I do admire Canon for in the time of the 300D hacks was that even though they stated the hacks violated and voided the warranty, I don't know of a single report of a 300D sent in for service by someone who forgot to remove the hack and reinstall the approved firmware being denied a warranty claim. They made a tough public face, but behind the scenes honored the warranties (at least here in the U.S.).

I feel you are also correct in your assertion that the hacks changed the face of Canon's entire DSLR product line (outside of the 1D line). Canon users are probably now enjoying cameras with broader feature sets than what were originally intended due to the hacks bumping up the bar so to speak.

[JKSeidel]

Originally Posted by bauerman

You know if this is the case - then the effect that Wasai and the Undutchables group had on the state of things is really even more significant than I originally posted. Good on them!

As you pointed out, the 350D. There was probably no way the original intent was to have the 350D come as close as it is to the 20D in features. The hack probably even affected the design of the 30D and to a lesser degree the 5D from the original scheme.

Originally Posted by bauerman

I wonder if we will ever see another hack for any other model? It would be interesting if we did to say the least...

I'd tend to doubt that would be the case. Canon did learn a lesson it appears. If it's in the chips, it's enabled (at least to a degree) if a particular camera's hardware can support it (remember that the 300D wasn't able to use every function enabled by the hacks, it just didn't have the hardware/connections). I doubt Canon will be caught with its pants down again in that manner. I'd wager that if they use a chip with more functionality than they intend for a particular camera again that they would make sure that there is a hardware (or non-volatile software) 'stop' to prevent such hacks from disrupting things again.