# Canon 1DC is IDENTICAL to 1DX other than firmware



## peederj (Sep 20, 2012)

http://www.eoshd.com/content/9044/exclusive-canon-confirm-1d-c-4k-dslr-is-same-hardware-as-the-1d-x



This is appalling enough IMO that any hacker who manages to get the 1DC firmware running on the 1DX ought to be...uhm...canonized as a saint.

I wonder if the C100 can similarly be turned into a C500.

In fact, I'm going to bet the 6D could probably do 4K video just the same if they wanted it to.

This is the sort of thing competition is supposed to destroy in a capitalist system. The companies should be releasing the best products they can at a fair markup, not artificially segmenting markets and dribbling out capability when it suits them.

The final indignity will be their refusing to *ever* send out decripple firmware for the bodies that could have ran it. They will ask you to buy a new body, just because we let them.


----------



## drjlo (Sep 20, 2012)

Not much surprises me about Canon's pricing and marketing tactics any more. 
If Magic Lantern folks can ever figure out how to get around the dual Digic systems like 1DX, and implement 4K video, then why.. all kinds of hell would break loose :-*


----------



## DB (Sep 20, 2012)

It's not a case of 'IF' but 'WHEN' now, especially given the price differential. They should never have admitted that it was identical hardware. I'll bet by Christmas there will be filmmakers shooting 4K on a 1DX branded body ;D


----------



## BruinBear (Sep 21, 2012)

What is appalling about this?

A macbook and a macbook with creative suite have the exact same hardware, yet the one with creative suite will cost you an extra 3.5k.

Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.


----------



## Shawn L (Sep 21, 2012)

BruinBear said:


> Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.



Being a programmer myself, I agree 

Shawn L.


----------



## peederj (Sep 21, 2012)

Canon refuses to price and sell the firmware upgrade. 1DX owners are SOL and treated like dirt even though they shelled out for Canon's flagship DSLR.

It is gruesome bad PR for their brand. It's simply arrogant mistreatment of the customer. And to pay for the programmers, the economies of scale they are forgoing by overpricing the thing would have taken care of that. 

When Sony released the FS700 they promised futureproofing with 4K output. RED has a camera upgrade policy. Blackmagic cripples nothing intentionally, they are just starting out but they give you RAW video for $3,000. Canon could let us record RAW to SSD just the same for $3,000 and make a tidy profit and pay all their programmers too. By making their products more exclusive based on price they are acting elitist and fully against the democratizing liberation of the independent filmmaker that made them so much money with the 5D2.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 21, 2012)

Is this the same Canon person that confirmed the 24-70mmL MK II was delayed until after October?
Certainly, much of the hardware will be the same.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 21, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Not much surprises me about Canon's pricing and marketing tactics any more.
> If Magic Lantern folks can ever figure out how to get around the dual Digic systems like 1DX, and implement 4K video, then why.. all kinds of hell would break loose :-*



I guess you missed http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/hacked-the-magic-lantern-team-cracks-the-eos-7d/ then. The 7d is a dual DIGIC, so perhaps ML will come to the 1DX eventually...I wouldn't hold my breath for anytime soon though.


----------



## CharlieB (Sep 21, 2012)

Shawn L said:


> BruinBear said:
> 
> 
> > Youre essentially _*paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop*_. Programmers arent free guys.
> ...



No... it matters not what the cost of development is. It matters the perceived value in the marketplace. 
Thats the only thing that matters.


----------



## jebrady03 (Sep 21, 2012)

CharlieB said:


> No... it matters not what the cost of development is. It matters the perceived value in the marketplace.
> Thats the only thing that matters.



Absolutely correct! If I invent something that costs me 47 cents to invent, patent, manufacture, distribute, promote, and sell - but I manage to sell out all I can make at 100 trillion dollars - why is that wrong?

I'm ALL ABOUT the internet - but I fear it has QUICKLY and DRASTICALLY brought about a sense of IMMENSE entitlement in our society (stuff that used to cost money can now be DL'd for free from lots of pirate websites and thus APPROPRIATE value is a thing of the past).

If someone wants to shoot 4K, they need to cough up $6K. If that pisses them off - beat sand to a competitor that's giving it away for free (or an upgrade fee). Enough others will take their place that Canon won't miss them. And should Canon fail, another company will step up and take their place and then people will be screaming about how they're bending people over too.

Get over your sense of entitlement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2012)

peederj said:


> By making their products more exclusive based on price they are...



...charging what the market will bear (in their estimate) and thus maximizing profit, which in turn maximizes shareholder value, which is their obligation as a publicly held corporation. 



peederj said:


> ...against the democratizing liberation of the independent filmmaker that made them so much money with the 5D2.



Democratic liberation of independent filmmakers isn't their goal or responsibility (see above). Besides...those indies that were successful using 5DII's can now afford 1D C's, right?  If not, they should just buy used 5DII's from the ones that have moved up...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 21, 2012)

Shawn L said:


> BruinBear said:
> 
> 
> > Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.
> ...



Not being a programmer, I also agree. Somebody needs to figure out all those 0s and 1s and I'm glad it ain't me.

I think I'll start a new thread: "OMG, Apple admits the iTouch and iPhone are essentially the same device"


----------



## CharlieB (Sep 21, 2012)

jebrady03 said:


> CharlieB said:
> 
> 
> > No... it matters not what the cost of development is. It matters the perceived value in the marketplace.
> ...



My sense of entitlement? What are you talking about man? Are you daft? I'm talking about simple manufacturing economics, something which you obviously know nothing about.

Yes, if you can make a trillion off 47 cents, its your right and privilege to do so! Thats not entitlement, its economics.

Let me 'splain once again. The final price of anything, is only what the market - thats you and me - are willing to pay. Thats it. The cost of manufacturing has NOTHING to do with the final price. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who tells you otherwise, is also clueless.

The old convention, of saying "it costs me X to make" so I'll mark it up "this much" and the price will be Y is totally out the window with mass production, especially highly automated mass production. In modern manufacturing, we approach the product backwards. We take a concept, market the concept, determine its value to the market (what we're willing to pay) and then manufacture it to the most cost effective way possible, while still keeping the feature set that retains the value in the market. Thats how it works. Jeeze.

One more example. The industry I work within makes a product. It cost us about eight bucks to make. We sell it for about $250 to the distribution network. Why? Because our marketing shows that we can get realistically $400 for it. So, it MSRP's out for $675, dealers pay $250ish. They sell it for $400 (or sometimes less. The customer think they get 40 percent discount off "list". Thats how our market works. But, our cost is eight bucks. We make a sister product, cost exactly the same to make... within a nickle. Our marketing shows that we can get $550 for it. Dealers pay $345ish, and its MSRP's for $925. We love to sell those. Eight bucks turns into $350 for each one, and they go four to a case. And... and... if you dont like it - well dont buy it.

Entitlement indeed. Get real.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

Shawn L said:


> BruinBear said:
> 
> 
> > Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.
> ...



The programmer does not charge for every Camera.... this is not the same as coding for a solution. There are definitely ethical considerations here... Canon is flaunting them.... has been flaunting them for a while... 

I agree to some extent that consumers can pay a bit extra for a few more lines of code... but in my book, what Canon is doing, is called "Usury".... it could be argued to be ethical, but it is definitely immoral.


----------



## Jotho (Sep 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Shawn L said:
> 
> 
> > BruinBear said:
> ...


For no reason can it ever be called immoral. Likely the actual manufacturing process of pre-loading the camera with the other firmware doesn't cost them anything, but would you not consider the development cost and future bug fix costs to be worth anything? This cost then has to be proportionally distributed toward forecasted number of sold products within a given timeframe, into this comes extra marketing money, a more complex distribution due to lower number of units sold etc etc. As you are likely not to expect that this model will be sold in high volumes like for example a 650D, then there are fewer sold units to distribute the cost to. Also, as far as I understand, Canon is not making provokingly large profits from their products like for example Apple, where you are apparently paying a huge premium for brand name.

Again are you upset and discussing a product that you are likely never to purchase.

Neuro puts it well above, Canon's ultimate reason to exist is to provide shareholder value. If they don't they will cease to exist. If they don't provide good enough products that the market won't accept, then they will also cease to exist. To me it looks like they're doing quite well.


----------



## jfretless (Sep 21, 2012)

immoral?

seriously?

this has been happening since the invention of consumerism. 

CPU companies locking cores?
Car companies de-tuning engines?
Food companies quietly shrinking package size while still charging the same amount of money?
Gas companies going for reducing octane ratings, but still calling it premium?

Why in the world would you expect anything different from Canon, or any other company?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> The programmer does not charge for every Camera.... this is not the same as coding for a solution. There are definitely ethical considerations here... Canon is flaunting them.... has been flaunting them for a while...
> 
> I agree to some extent that consumers can pay a bit extra for a few more lines of code... but in my book, what Canon is doing, is called "Usury".... it could be argued to be ethical, but it is definitely immoral.


Flaunting ethical considerations? Immorality? Sheesh. Canon is running a business. They're not a church or a charity. They're selling what amounts to a luxury good, not charging impoverished, starving people thousands of dollars for a morsel of food and a sip of water. Their goal is to make a profit. Period. So long as they're not breaking the law, it's all fair game. If they want to hand paint a fuschia ring on the nifty-fifty using sparkly nail polish, call it a L3 Ultra-Cine lens, and charge $50,000 for it, they can. If you don't want it, don't buy it. If one filmmaker who's obsessed with the color fuschia buys it, and Canon makes a 3,000-fold profit on that sale, good for Canon. 

If Fujio Mitarai points a real cannon (artillery piece) at your house, and threatens to shoot cannonballs through it with your family inside unless you buy a 1D C, _that's_ unethical and immoral (not to mention illegal). If they're forcing workers to work 20 hour shifts with no food, water, or rest, _that's_ unethical and immoral (even if, sadly, it's not illegal in some countries). But they can charge whatever price they want for their products - ethics and morality are irrelevant to their pricing decisions.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > The programmer does not charge for every Camera.... this is not the same as coding for a solution. There are definitely ethical considerations here... Canon is flaunting them.... has been flaunting them for a while...
> ...



So we agree it is immoral


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

Jotho said:


> , Canon's ultimate reason to exist is to provide shareholder value. If they don't they will cease to exist.



Strictly speaking, even if they do not provide enhanced shareholder value, they will continue to exist (maybe the CEO wont) till they begin posting losses or earning below Asset coverage values. Shareholders might liquidate their holdings... yes but that does not mean Canon will cease to exist


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...


I suppose that you think that multimillion dollar center in Hollywood to support customers of Canon's Cinema products came for free, and the people working there should donate their time. After all, its immoral to charge for your work. All that makes up part of the cost of the product.
You need to look at the whole picture, not just a tiny portion.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> and the people working there should donate their time. After all, its immoral to charge for your work.



No one said they should donate their time or that charging for it was immoral... it is the excessive charging that I have an issue with... don't you have any problem with them charging 2x for a 1Dc that essentially has the same production cost as a 1Dx? (don't tell me the cost of the firmware spread across the bodies is $7k per body).

They are price skimming...

This has been discussed for decades in marketing textbooks if it is unethical or not... but Canon is pushing the envelope here.


----------



## Promature (Sep 21, 2012)

Wait, um, why is this news? Video card manufacturers (AMD and nVidia) have been doing this for years. They have their consumer card and their pro card. They are physically identical to the last detail, yet the pro version is 10x more expensive. You know why? Because the pro version has drivers to run all of the workstation applications and are optimized for better performance under those applications. You know what too? If you use that pro graphics card to play video games it's going to suck wind.

Programming costs money, and is usually more expensive than any hardware costs.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 21, 2012)

I agree that it seems like they could sell a lot more if they priced it at $10k, but $13k does seem steep if it's the exact same $6800 camera as the 1DX with different firmware. I think Canon probably isn't worried about it since most people equate "4K" with "expensive." I get what everyone says about Canon being able to charge whatever they want, and normally I totally agree with that. But it seems like instead of actually developing a cinema dslr they just took a 1DX and figured out how to make it shoot 4K and added little red "C" to it and $$6000 to the price.


----------



## Jotho (Sep 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > and the people working there should donate their time. After all, its immoral to charge for your work.
> ...


Still you don't seem to get it. What is excessive in this case? In relation to what? To what you think? High end products are normally also high margin products. That's why manufacturers like to play in that market space.


----------



## Jotho (Sep 21, 2012)

Promature said:


> Wait, um, why is this news? Video card manufacturers (AMD and nVidia) have been doing this for years. They have their consumer card and their pro card. They are physically identical to the last detail, yet the pro version is 10x more expensive. You know why? Because the pro version has drivers to run all of the workstation applications and are optimized for better performance under those applications. You know what too? If you use that pro graphics card to play video games it's going to suck wind.
> 
> Programming costs money, and is usually more expensive than any hardware costs.


I would argue that hardware development can be fairly expensive also.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 21, 2012)

Yes, and RED certainly doesn't make you spend thousands of dollars on accessories (that a normal camera should just have) just to make their cameras work...

And Sony certainly isn't charging money for a firmware upgrade to actually record 4k in their FS700...

Can we stop pretending Canon is the only company doing this; EVERY video company does this. If you don't mark up products, you take huge profit losses and fold.


----------



## bvukich (Sep 21, 2012)

Unethical... Immoral...

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.


----------



## peederj (Sep 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> peederj said:
> 
> 
> > By making their products more exclusive based on price they are...
> ...



1) For products that don't obey scarcity economics (such as firmware/software) the "price that the market will bear" is difficult to determine as it is the maximum revenue that can be extracted from all customers optimizing for price. A million copies sold at $1 is more profitable than 90 copies sold at $10,000 etc..

2) Maintaining brand equity is more important to shareholders than short-term profits. The future value of the company is what is speculated on; a price to earnings ratio of 20 or more is common. If investors were just interested in dividends they may as well buy bonds. Canon had a coup with the 5D2 and its message of universal empowerment; if I was a shareholder I would demand an explanation why the company had ceded this strategic advantage to Panasonic with only firmware differences as a cause.

I would be fine if the camera was an open platform like a computer and had open access to the internals and allowed different firmware vendors to provide their own codecs and features; right now we have to rely on unauthorized hacker groups to do this for us. Fine, power to the hackers, but I created a lot of Canon shareholder value buying all that EF glass and I would like a company that strives to make that investment pay off rather than dangle mere firmware in front of me at enormous cost.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 21, 2012)

peederj said:


> http://www.eoshd.com/content/9044/exclusive-canon-confirm-1d-c-4k-dslr-is-same-hardware-as-the-1d-x
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. they double the price because of 4k firmware and all the talk about needing more compression power chips and special redesigned body for heat dissipation etc. all BS.
2. they made a big deal about 22MP sensors making the best video and yet the 1DC uses an 18MP sensor

dual digic iv fits in the 7D i wonder if dual digic 5+ would have fit in the 5D3 - they could have taken the market by storm even more than the 5D2 had, instead they are just going to be yet another player, one among many at best (or maybe driven 30MP at 6fps for stills)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 21, 2012)

BruinBear said:


> What is appalling about this?
> 
> A macbook and a macbook with creative suite have the exact same hardware, yet the one with creative suite will cost you an extra 3.5k.
> 
> Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.



Also being a programmer, gimme a break. Making it spit out 4k vs 1080p video takes $6000 development per camera, hahahahahahahaha. If that cost $6000 per body then considering all the other stuff the base cameras would cost $600,000.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...charging what the market will bear (in their estimate) and thus maximizing profit, which in turn maximizes shareholder value, which is their obligation as a publicly held corporation.



giving up domination of a market segment to merely become a secondary player so you can charge more per copy might actually not maximize profit long run


----------



## Promature (Sep 21, 2012)

Jotho said:


> Promature said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, um, why is this news? Video card manufacturers (AMD and nVidia) have been doing this for years. They have their consumer card and their pro card. They are physically identical to the last detail, yet the pro version is 10x more expensive. You know why?  Because the pro version has drivers to run all of the workstation applications and are optimized for better performance under those applications. You know what too? If you use that pro graphics card to play video games it's going to suck wind.
> ...



I am talking about when the hardware is the same, be it video cards or camera bodies.


----------



## bvukich (Sep 21, 2012)

This breaking news just in...

Photoshop elements and Creative Suite are both comprised of binary 1s & 0s, therefore it's one of my fundamental human rights to get CS for the same price as Elements! Anyone that thinks differently is immoral, unethical, and should probably be charged as a terrorist...

:


----------



## Jotho (Sep 21, 2012)

Promature said:


> Jotho said:
> 
> 
> > Promature said:
> ...


Understand and agree.


----------



## Jotho (Sep 21, 2012)

bvukich said:


> This breaking news just in...
> 
> Photoshop elements and Creative Suite are both comprised of binary 1s & 0s, therefore it's one of my fundamental human rights to get CS for the same price as Elements! Anyone that thinks differently is immoral, unethical, and should probably be charged as a terrorist...
> 
> :


Or at least deemed persona non grata and shall never be spoken of again.


----------



## Ew (Sep 21, 2012)

While they seem almost the same, the price structure takes into account mfg and development costs. 

I'm no insider, but it's obvious that Canon had to do a lot of luring of the motion pic to industry to comment, test implementations, review, then review modify and around the circle again until a given performance leve is achieved in the end. Same for 1dx with the photography market. 

Then moving on to manufacturing, how do you minimize costs without cutting off customers (1dx) ?
Its likely that running two sep lines here would cost more. The question is then, the 1Dx customer can pay for a pro series body, but for for features they don't need at the level required by a very vertical market. 

So it's not: 1Dc = 1Dx + firmware
But rather: 1Dx = 1Dc - firmware

And I'm not talking algebra here, it ends up being more of a marketing approach. 

Canon also needs to keep then line apart from getting to close to the 100,300,500 series bodies. 

In following to another current thread .. Perhaps this is a case when a "pay for firmware" model could have been a good solution.


----------



## devank (Sep 21, 2012)

Shawn L from pdi by any chance ? 


Shawn L said:


> Being a programmer myself, I agree
> 
> Shawn L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2012)

bvukich said:


> Unethical... Immoral...
> 
> You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.



Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up:

Production costs are of minuscule to no importance in determining retail price. Canon can charge what they choose. If you don't like the price, don't buy (or wait and see if it drops, ala 5DIII). A wheelbarrow is not listed among our assets.


----------



## simonxu11 (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*

It's Canon, you know it!!


----------



## JasonATL (Sep 21, 2012)

I don't see the justification for outrage toward Canon for charging more for certain features in one set of firmware compared to another. As others have pointed out, this is exactly what software is. If it hasn't been mentioned already, MS Windows 7 Professional, Ultimate, etc. is just another example. 

What I find disappointing by Canon is the decision (so far) to not sell an "upgrade", or more appropriately, a "conversion" kit for a 1DX to make it a 1DC.

Indeed, a la carte pricing (see, for example, the smartphone in your hand) might just be on the horizon. With Magic Lantern, we almost have this (never minding the fact that this system is, by no means, "open" or built for apps).


----------



## Ant_Pap_Cy (Sep 21, 2012)

*Canon confirm 1D C 4K DSLR is identical hardware to a 1D X*

Just read this article and i lost my mind.... not sure what to say really !!! Oh well, here it is and make up your own minds!!! Do you really think a software upgrade can justify a £10,000 price increase ???? 

http://www.eoshd.com/content/9044/exclusive-canon-confirm-1d-c-4k-dslr-is-same-hardware-as-the-1d-x


----------



## Chewy734 (Sep 21, 2012)

BruinBear said:


> What is appalling about this?
> 
> A macbook and a macbook with creative suite have the exact same hardware, yet the one with creative suite will cost you an extra 3.5k.
> 
> Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.



I agree, programmers aren't free guys. But that being said, your analogy is flawed. A more correct analogy is that you _*have*_ to buy a Macbook with CS6 for $3.5k more. You can't buy a Macbook and later decide you want to get CS6 and just buy the software for an additional upgrade free.

_*That*_ is what Canon has done. Although that is not necessarily morally wrong, it's definitely frowned upon and hurts their high-end customers. I don't understand their reasoning behind it. What sort of misguided business decision was this? They obviously know they made a mistake, otherwise why hide the only difference being the firmware and say "oh, it's because of heat dissipation, bandwidth issues, etc". They made is sound like that they upgraded the inside significantly, instead of just removing the X and adding a red C on the outside. Ugh.


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 21, 2012)

I feel a great respect for them to admitting it. Really!
I feel it more ethical, than hiding it in some marketing bullshit.
As an electronic engineer and programmer (from time to time) myself, I feel more confidence in Canon engineers, they were able to produce one good hardware equipment and use it for different purposes. That's lowering total costs of production and this is good for us - customers.

All guys spitting on Canon because of this - you should really rethink your business and world imagination. Truely.

First of all - do you work somewhere? Let's assume you don't run your own business but work on a monthly based payment. Do you have savings? If so, then you should shame! If you have savings, then it means, that you charged for your work more, than it really costed! Bad boys! If you run your business, even photography or cinema one - how much do you charge for your work? In such a case don't you like to say: "my work is worth this money"? What does it have common with costs you made?

Secondly - if you don't like this and you are still where you live, then you should move to other country, were market liberty is not on the level, allowing to demand for the product or service as much, as someone is willing to pay for it. This is not the product of the "first need". This is not bread, milk or electric current. This is equipment made to make money for those, who can. If you cannot afford it because your work is too weak or your customers won't pay enough then this is not equipment for you so stop whining.

Would I like it for my amateur work? Yes. Do I consider it? No. If I had customers willing repay for it in some time I would consider but as a tool but also would consider a competition.

Is it wrong they don't want to sell an upgrade to allow you shooting at 4k with 1Dx? Only market will punish them if this is the wrong decision.

Is it wrong they admitted this is the same equipment? No, and +1000 (points, not $) for them ;-)

That's my honest opinion.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*

The tax man strikes again! 

It would be interesting to hear from their actual engineers. When a sales/marketing/executive guy says 'basically the same'....it makes me wonder about the important details that are NOT the same that an engineer understands.

I'm sure many will wish that they got the upgrade for free, or feel they are in some other way slighted by Canon, but its interesting insight in to some of the factors that go in to business and product decisions. If the 1DX had the features, it would have to be EVEN MORE expensive (and it was already blasted for beeing too expensive) due to tax/business law. I've seen some stuff like that with cars and firearms - where features, engine power, or something had to be changed to allow the product to be competitive within the framework of import and tax laws. 

-Brian


----------



## Ant_Pap_Cy (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: Canon confirm 1D C 4K DSLR is identical hardware to a 1D X*

Sorry had not seen them ! Had been to busy at work recently and didnt get much time searching the forum so the moment a friend had send me the link i thought i'd post it here. Thanks for the heads up !!! 
Just pondering what the real capabilities of the 5DM3 could be with a software upgrade ! But oh well, great camera non the least !!!! 
Cheers !!!


----------



## Chewy734 (Sep 21, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> so why we talking about all this??
> 
> just shut up, don´t voice your opinion.. buy or don´t buy canon stuff.. that is the solution for everything canon!!



I hope you forgot the /sarcasm tag there.

Why wouldn't you discuss this in an open forum? For example, people are discussing how crappy the new maps are on iOS 6 on the Apple forums.


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 21, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> so you all stop complaining about canons decision to sell the crippled 6D for 2100$... pathetic bunch....
> 
> if 6000$ more for firmware is ok then sure the 6D is worth 2100 dollar.
> 
> ...



I like to read this forum as a place where I can learn something and find useful links for more lecture. I can advice the same for others.


----------



## pdirestajr (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*

What is the difference in price between PhotoShop Elements & CS6 Master Suite?


----------



## DB (Sep 21, 2012)

As a research student at university, I pay a reduced amount for Windows 7 Pro and Adobe CS6 (through suppliers like Software 4 Students), so I appreciate fully the difference between an individual (like myself) purchasing Adobe CS6 for 1/10th of the price of say an Advertising Agency who will use it as a tool to make money. I will play with Photoshop and Premiere Pro for my own amusement. Therefore I understand the compelling argument that commercial enterprises can afford to pay a higher price. I still do not understand though why Adobe would want to charge me - as an individual - €3,600+VAT (sales tax @21% where I live), or approximately US$5,000 for their full suite of tools.

With regards to morals & ethics, well morality is a very grey area, after all who can say definitively what is right and what is wrong, however, ethics is an entirely different matter. Ethics relates to conduct and behavior, particularly professional conduct, and it is not imho ethical to admit to customers that product A and B are identical physically, but because of a slight difference (in software), that one customer is expected to pay double. Indeed, commercial organizations do not divulge their costs to the public in detail (especially product detail), nor are they legally required to. It is also not ethical to divulge that your employer makes a product for 8 bucks and sells it for 250! Ask any HR director or personnel executive. Or worse, ask your boss!

As Neuro said above, Canon do not operate on a Cost+ basis. They sell their DSLR 'lifestyle' products (most are not targeted at Professionals but at hobbyists and serious amateur enthusiasts) to people who want particular features and are prepared to pay for them. Neuro has a 1DX and a lot of L glass, and does not really care if the 1DX cost Canon $2k to manufacture and he paid $6k for it in a store. He wanted it, so he bought it.

But getting back to the original question regarding the identical (physically) products that are controlled by different firmware. We live in a world where if you buy a product, it is yours and you can do with it what you wish. It's your property after all. Which is why most of us would agree that using Magic Lantern software on a Canon camera is legitimate - it may invalidate your manufacturer warranty - but that is your choice.

Ergo, using the last argument, if a buyer purchases a 1DX for full retail, then pays ML a $50 contribution (along with thousands of other 1DX owners) towards a bootable firmware upgrade that turns a 1DX temporarily into a 1Dc (and back again when you remove the memory card) then that is perfectly fine and legal.

Now if this does happen, is it then ethical for a TV network to buy 4 x 1DX's instead of 4 x 1Dc's and buy the firmware off of ML in an effort to reduce costs? Answer: of course it is.

So I fundamentally disagree that Canon was ethical divulging this proprietary fact that has commercial implications. There simply was no need to. Furthermore, they should have designed a slightly different body for the 1Dc such that it's physical appearance would not have prompted customers to ask in the first place.

Canon have made a_ faux pas_ here, and in the process have dangled a challenge to hackers and software developers to have a go (and they will, try at least). Now that is not in the interests of Canon Inc. shareholders.


----------



## victorwol (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



pdirestajr said:


> What is the difference in price between PhotoShop Elements & CS6 Master Suite?



Tons of features and more programs. Not just allowing you to sabe bigger files... You are kidding right?


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 21, 2012)

I hope I'm wrong, but in this case it may be not so easy for ML as just unlocking these features. There may be quite a lot of code necessery to write, in order to make it running on 1Dx. It can even be not possible at all and until ML team takes in it their hands, no one except Canon knows it more or less sure.

I don't find it not ethical, what they admitted. It owuld be not ethical, if they would deny but someone would prove it.

If this is what they did was not ethical, then we live in a world, where everything is not ethical as well, or worse.

Windows Pro vs Windows Server - without one byte in register, different price.
Printers differing in one additional chip making them worse for purpose
Processors with bridged jumpers to force them work at specific speed
Ink cartridges with processors
Car engines operated with software not allowing optimized results
Producing another case and some buttons for commercial product and selling it for three times the price
Car parts requiring to be changed for no reason after the guarantee period is over

As far this business is more ethical than others, because here I haven't seen something like planned obsolescence (read more for explanation and other links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence). In terms of ethics I will defend Canon in this case (not being a fanboy myself) because I have seen hundreds of really not ethical behaviors and this is not the one. Hiding this information would not be ethical, admitting it is ethical.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 21, 2012)

Shawn L said:


> BruinBear said:
> 
> 
> > Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.
> ...



+1


----------



## DB (Sep 21, 2012)

Canon do not have to lie, they just have to say "We do not comment on certain technological aspects of our products for commercial reasons".


The software coding issue is very pertinent - we do not know if it is a lot of code or just a few lines. Thus it may be an impossible task to crack, then again just like a ML coder had an "Aha!" moment and 3-years of not being able to crack the 7D firmware with 2 processors becomes another Canon camera to be added to the list of ML scalps.


----------



## pdirestajr (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



victorwol said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > What is the difference in price between PhotoShop Elements & CS6 Master Suite?
> ...



Um, I didn't ask what was the difference between the programs- I was making a point referring to the difference in price!

IE: Software comes in a range of prices, hence, the reason the 1DC can be so much more expensive.


----------



## simonxu11 (Sep 21, 2012)

In the end, it's still a canon forum~~people here try to defend canon as hard as they can while canon is laughing, they will continue this strategy as long as they can because the existence of these truly loyal consumers.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Sep 21, 2012)

I think what I have a hard time understanding is the fact that they think they'll make more money from having the two different models: X vs C. Yes there are many medium-end filmmakers who will pay the price premium, and Canon will make some money off them to be sure. However there are many many more low-end filmmakers who have a 5D, GH2, etc. that won't pay 13,000 for a 4k camera, but would pay $6800 for it. It's not so big a leap in price for those who make a smaller amount of money shooting. I'd think that the profit they could make off of a $6800 camera that shoots 4k would far exceed that of a $13000 camera. Because at $1300 they are lining up to be just another one of many competitors. If they could hit that 7k price point they could be the leader of the market again. 

You might think that a low-end also as a 1Dx owner I thought for a little bit about getting a 1Dc, but I just couldn't justify the cost at the time. But I would like 4k SLR very much because I shoot wedding photography and videos and an all-in-one camera would be awesome. And now that I've forke over 7k on thee 1Dx I might be willing to fork over another 6k for a firmware update. There will be many like me who will change their mind after the fact, and would pay for a firmware update, but wouldn't pay another $1300 for an entirely new camera. 

Just some thoughts. Canon can do what they want. I'm a capitalist. I price my weddi work like a capitalist. I just fail to see how they would make more money at the higher price point with this kind of market. But I'm a photographer not an economist.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Sep 21, 2012)

bvukich said:


> Unethical... Immoral...
> 
> You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.



Totally agree. People here have never seen an episode of Shark Tank it seems.

When you go to a movie and pay $10 for a ticket per showing when you could buy the Blu-Ray for $20, is that unethical? Is paying $20 for two drinks and a large popcorn when it costs the theater < $2 for that immoral?? 

Those complaining here are the same lot that complain that the 5D3 should sell for $1200, or that they didn't get all the features of the 1Dx in a body 1/3 the cost, or gee whizz the 6D does not have the same AF as the 7D. Unrealistic whiners who would fail as corporate leaders.

They also would probably cry that BMW puts in restrictions on the US versions of the M5 that limit it's maximum horsepower and still charge you over $100k for the car.


----------



## FunPhotons (Sep 21, 2012)

I work for a company that does this. A lot of companies do this. If you think there is something wrong with it then you have a naive view of production costs for a technological item. You aren't buying a commodity like carrots here folks, these things are the products of a long R&D cycle where no money is being made, and lots of money is being spent for a long time. 

_The reason they do this is to lower production costs and thereby reduce the cost to the consumer and maximize profits to the company. _ In this case they can get a better ROIC on the 1DX by having a higher priced 1DC to help fund it - and I bet the price on the 1DX is lower than it might be if this didn't happen. The 1DC costs more because it sells to a tiny market - and don't believe that it doesn't take expensive marketing resources to sell to that market. 

It's called a product line. Dishwasher manufacturers do the same thing. All their models usually derive from one basic chassis where they add on different front panels and parts. In this case the 1DC has a software add on and a name tag. And don't pretend for a minute that the firmware development came for free. 

Grow up and get over it.


----------



## victorwol (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*

The only difference with the 1D X is that records in 4K using the same machine. So that is like Adobe charging you 10 times more for allowing Elements to save bigger files. Your comparison with Elements and the full suite does not makes much sense since we are talking about hundreds of more features. Not just one. Now if the difference where 4K, vectorscope, RAW codec, HDSDI output, 10 bits recording, 4:4:4 etc... Then I can see that being paid no problem. But just allow a 4 K recording on the same hardware for twice the money seems a bit too much for mostly everyone in here.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*

Again, what other companies offer 4k for $6800? Aside from JVC with a fixed lens, tiny sensor camera.

The closest thing is the theoretical 4k of Sony when they release it, and even that will likely cost $10k as a package. It'd be insane for Canon to offer their 4k camera for significantly less than their competitors, especially when it would destroy the rest of their video line (who buys a C300 or C500 when they can get better res at half the price).

Also, if you consider that the cost of R&D has to be spread out over potential buyers, who is to say it doesn't cost a shit ton of money per camera. 4k isn't just some cakewalk piece of software....Sony hasn't even delivered theirs despite announcing their camera 6 months ago. Nobody even seems to know what it will cost or when it will release. Panasonic only has a concept camera that does 4k. Everything else that does 4k is $20k+, and the industry standard stuff is $50k+. The number of people who buy a camera this pricey might literally be in the hundreds or low thousands, and most of that will be production studios and rental shops.


----------



## dadgummit (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*

So does this mean Magic Lantern can turn the 1DX into a 4K camera?


----------



## victorwol (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



preppyak said:


> Again, what other companies offer 4k for $6800? Aside from JVC with a fixed lens, tiny sensor camera.
> 
> The closest thing is the theoretical 4k of Sony when they release it, and even that will likely cost $10k as a package. It'd be insane for Canon to offer their 4k camera for significantly less than their competitors, especially when it would destroy the rest of their video line (who buys a C300 or C500 when they can get better res at half the price).
> 
> Also, if you consider that the cost of R&D has to be spread out over potential buyers, who is to say it doesn't cost a S___ ton of money per camera. 4k isn't just some cakewalk piece of software....Sony hasn't even delivered theirs despite announcing their camera 6 months ago. Nobody even seems to know what it will cost or when it will release. Panasonic only has a concept camera that does 4k. Everything else that does 4k is $20k+, and the industry standard stuff is $50k+. The number of people who buy a camera this pricey might literally be in the hundreds or low thousands, and most of that will be production studios and rental shops.



They are selling the same hardware crippled down to HD for half the money. That shows you that they can afford to do it. I understand what you say, but its a very good way to make clients very unhappy to do it the way they are doing it.


----------



## Chewy734 (Sep 21, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> They also would probably cry that BMW puts in restrictions on the US versions of the M5 that limit it's maximum horsepower and still charge you over $100k for the car.



Along the same lines... would you be pissed if you bought a $100k M5, and then next year when the new GPS update comes out, BMW made you purchase a new M5 instead of allowing you to buy a DVD with the updated maps? Or, if you want a Sirius Satellite Radio in your car, you'd have to buy a brand new car with that option, as opposed to just adding it to your current car? Remember, now you can get BMWs pre-wired with Sirius now, just not activated (in other words, it's similar to just a firmware update).

But, I agree, it's not a question of being ethical or moral... they can do whatever they want. But, it doesn't mean that some of us can't be pissed about it.


----------



## marinien (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



Freelancer said:


> why would he say that when it is not the case.. i mean it´s stupid that he admited that at all.
> 
> the reaction on this is 95% negative.



... and the same 95% are not the target market for these two cameras :


----------



## DB (Sep 21, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > Unethical... Immoral...
> ...



Your car analogy is totally erroneous! Btw I've owned both the BMW M5 and the BMW M3 (one I chipped to over 400BHP with fun but detrimental results). There are 2 genuine reasons to limit the performance/horsepower of a BMW M5 sold into the US market:

(1) Cars in the USA are subject to different homologation criteria, thus exhaust system (affects HP) and catalytic converters are different

(2) BMW Motorsport automobiles in Europe are designed and optimized to run on RON 98 gasoline that is simply not widely available in the United States. Both my M5 & M3 had a sticker on the inside of the fuel cap door with the recommendation; "Warning 98 Octane Fuel Recommended", with an additional explanation that you could use 95 Octane when 98 was not available. In the US, most gas stations sell 87, 89, 91 or 92 octane fuel! 

You could add ethanol to US gasoline to boost the octane level, in the same way that you add an additive to 2-stroke engines but nobody in a suit driving an M5 in NY is going to be sitting there at a gas station mixing 'stuff' into their fuel as they fill up their tank, having paid a hundred grand for the car.


The point you're all missing here, is the difference between genuine product differentiation, coupled with a differential (marketing) pricing policy, where there is an apparent dislocation between product/price

If any of you want a really informative lesson on business ethics, then read *"Bad Science"* by Ben Goldacre, a journalist and a Doctor who has trained medical students. You'll soon see how Canon is no different to Big Pharma or indeed other multinationals who milk their customers for every last cent of profit, and where _MARKETING_ budgets dwarf _R&D_ budgets in all of the large corporations around the world, including Canon


----------



## unfocused (Sep 21, 2012)

OMG! I just learned that for years the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable were the same car with just different options and nameplate. That's so immoral!


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



dadgummit said:


> So does this mean Magic Lantern can turn the 1DX into a 4K camera?


The ML door is opened for 7D and 1DX now. You will see that later.
Alex will work for uncompressed video on on ML of 5D3 version. Unfortunately, the hardware limitation is not allowing 5D3 to have 4K video feature.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

bvukich said:


> Unethical... Immoral...
> 
> You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.



Dear Global Spam Assassinator...

Thank you for telling me what I mean, and even more thanks onhow stupid I am that I dont know the meaning of immoral or unethical... ??? . Now to the important stuff:

The thread was started with the premis that Canon has just fessed up that the hardware of 1Dc and 1Dx is the same... this after they made earlier assertions that the two Cameras had different internals and to quote " because of heat dissipation, bandwidth issues" .... I don't know what values you follow, but lying is not only unethical, it is immoral. Misleading customer and the general public is immoral and unethical. Grossly overcharging the customer might be ethical, but maybe NOT immoral.... I can go on but I think you see where this is going.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> yeah well.... it at least shows all your "because manufacturing is so expensive" excuses are nothing but BS.



+1


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> I feel a great respect for them to admitting it. Really!



Really? someone ripped the innards of the 1Dc to find it is same as the 1Dx and when Canon were caught lying with their pants down; so they fessed and you are stilling finding excuses for them? What I respect is your unquestional loyalty to them. And assuming you are sufficiently invested in Canon gear; Two words come to mind...

"Stockholm Syndrome"


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > I feel a great respect for them to admitting it. Really!
> ...



Come on... Where did they lie? What is really wrong in this practice? I feel respect for you work but what you write here is insane. Loyalty has nothing to do here. I don't feel respect for canon because this is canon but because of this action. Am I really so loyal? Read other my posts. My point of view has nothing to do with loyalty.

Someone has written here a good summarize: grow up people...


----------



## nikkito (Sep 21, 2012)

Shawn L said:


> BruinBear said:
> 
> 
> > Youre essentially paying for the software that costs the company money and time to develop. Programmers arent free guys.
> ...



I also agree!


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 21, 2012)

unfocused said:


> OMG! I just learned that for years the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable were the same car with just different options and nameplate. That's so immoral!



Shhhh that's a big cover-up conspiracy that no one should ever know about or there will be riots and mass hysteria! 8)


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

nikkito said:


> Shawn L said:
> 
> 
> > BruinBear said:
> ...



I agree too... but the issue is about grossly overcharging... since we all agree that production costs are a miniscule part of the price... right?


----------



## Rat (Sep 21, 2012)

peederj said:


> This is the sort of thing competition is supposed to destroy in a capitalist system. The companies should be releasing the best products they can at a fair markup, not artificially segmenting markets and dribbling out capability when it suits them.


I hope today we all learned that capitalism doesn't advance anything but capitalists


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > marekjoz said:
> ...



Apologies for coming on a bit strong there buddy... 

I will say though; I hope ML can crack the firmware so that all my 1Dx buddies can have a 1Dc when they want.


----------



## DB (Sep 21, 2012)

unfocused said:


> OMG! I just learned that for years the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable were the same car with just different options and nameplate. That's so immoral!



Yeah but does a Mercury Sable cost twice as much as a Ford Taurus? I think not (Q.E.D.), that's just branding. But to build a car with a V8 engine, then use the Engine Management System (EMS) to switch off 4 cylinders and sell it for $25,000, then offer the same car with same nameplate (apart from one letter) for $50,000 is not immoral, it is just business stupidity as the owner will eventually find a workaround.

Do you think those who paid $12,995 for a 1Dc are now happy in the knowledge that they bought a 1DX running a slightly modified OS?


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > Unethical... Immoral...
> ...



So you want to apply the standard of corporate leaders (that constitute less than 1% of the population) to the general masses / consumers? Really? 

I could also argue that it makes less sense for them to price their products they way they are and might infact be better off (considering the relative price elasticity) lowering prices on some products thereby increasing overall profitability due to volume and market share captured...; heck.. some execs in Canon marketing might also feel the same way but some other guys disagree... thats fine, it's how life is, your opinion vs mine. 

On the Car analogy... Sorry bad example; the crippling of the M5 was more to do with regulations rather than BMW raping it's US consumer base...


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

Rat said:


> peederj said:
> 
> 
> > This is the sort of thing competition is supposed to destroy in a capitalist system. The companies should be releasing the best products they can at a fair markup, not artificially segmenting markets and dribbling out capability when it suits them.
> ...



+1 and when they have sucked dry all the rest... they will wonder why people are not buying anymore...


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

DB said:


> Do you think those who paid $12,995 for a 1Dc are now happy in the knowledge that they bought a 1DX running a slightly modified OS?



+1: When I was studying Marketing years ago... I vaguely remember a quote: saying that a happy customer will talk to 1 potential customer about their expereiences with a company, but a pissed off customer will talk to 14 !! Canon... don't piss off your customers.


----------



## GuyF (Sep 21, 2012)

Welcome to a capitalist society.

Here's how it works: get hold of some capital and do something so that it increases.

Want me to run over that one more time?

Every manufacturer on the planet probably does the same as Canon with some of their products. A while back a Sony repair engineer told me two of their TV models were identical apart from the more expensive one had the flag for Teletext enabled in it's firmware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletext). Change the flag and charge £99 more.

The Rolls Royce Ghost uses the BMW 7-series chassis. The Aston Martin Cygnet is a re-badged Toyota IQ. The Sony 300mm f2.8 looks remarkably similar to the Canon 300mm f2.8  etc.

Canon are not unique.


----------



## JasonATL (Sep 21, 2012)

DB said:


> Do you think those who paid $12,995 for a 1Dc are now happy in the knowledge that they bought a 1DX running a slightly modified OS?



Maybe. But perhaps those who bought a 1DX at half the price of a 1DC figure they got a bargain, by your reasoning. But, either way, this misses the entire point. 

The price of a 1DX compared to a 1DC isn't the relevant comparison. At this time, I cannot buy a 1DX and get the capabilities of a 1DC. Canon sells hardware and software bundled together, not separately (yet). The relevant choices for someone who wants/needs the features of the 1DX are competitors to the 1DC. And this is the relevant benchmark by which Canon should price its products.

If you don't think one of Canon's products is worth its price. Don't buy it. Don't accuse them of immorality or a lack of ethics. And, for those who bemoan the capitalist system: Keep in mind that if it weren't for such a system, you wouldn't have the product development advances that this industry has experienced. Without a profit motive, there is no advancement of the technology. Some might say they agree with this and then try to claim that the profit Canon seeks is beyond "fair." The market (those who demand exchanging with those who supply) determines what is fair. Any profit beyond "fair" is not realized.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*

Another way to look at it is that the 4K market is poised to drop in price dramatically over the next few years. Would the 1DX be different if it didn't have the physical capability to support 4K? Probably, and it might have been a little less expensive to produce, but Canon saved a lot of R&D by having a platform that supported both the 1DX and 4K video. Canon isn't marketing the 1DC to photographers/small video outfits. It's charging what the market will bear. Early adopters pay the price premium -- what else is new?

However, if ML were able to crack the 1 DX, then the price will fall quickly. Or if more competitors entered the market at a lower price, then the price will fall also. But if the hardware is the same between the 1DC/1DX, then Canon can still make money by selling a 4K for $7k. Go competition and ML!


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 21, 2012)

JasonATL said:


> DB said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think those who paid $12,995 for a 1Dc are now happy in the knowledge that they bought a 1DX running a slightly modified OS?
> ...



...untill there is a monopoly and the product is a must.


----------



## Rat (Sep 21, 2012)

JasonATL said:


> If you don't think one of Canon's products is worth its price. Don't buy it. Don't accuse them of immorality or a lack of ethics. And, for those who bemoan the capitalist system: Keep in mind that if it weren't for such a system, you wouldn't have the product development advances that this industry has experienced. Without a profit motive, there is no advancement of the technology. Some might say they agree with this and then try to claim that the profit Canon seeks is beyond "fair." The market (those who demand exchanging with those who supply) determines what is fair. Any profit beyond "fair" is not realized.


(1) there is no such thing as an absolute moral. Therefore, 'fair' does not exist. I know you know, I'm just hammering the point home.
(2) please stop making me understand the business ethics of Apple. I'd like to keep hating them.


----------



## DB (Sep 21, 2012)

I have no problem with Canon charging $X for a product, but then charging $XX for a different model. You're right, we don't have to buy either of them. But what I do have a problem with is them admitting that the only difference between them is the software running on them, because no-one here condemns ML for hacking Canon's existing firmware in the 5DIII, 60D, 550D, and so on (or the hacked Panasonic GH2).

You cannot have it both ways. If you accept that Canon sells the 1Dc more because of the software, then it is okay for a 1DX owner to use different software on their camera to achieve the same result.

@K-Amps, I really hope that ML or someone else cracks the 1DX/1Dc firmware, so that people like you can film 4K footage on your 1DX, then playback on your new Sony 84" TV, whilst the rest of us can watch your uploaded YouTube videos @ 'Original' (YouTube compression) on our 1600 x 900 laptop screens and say....WOW 8)


----------



## Viggo (Sep 21, 2012)

When people like this exist you can charge whatever for whatever...

First Look: iPhone 5


----------



## Rat (Sep 21, 2012)

DB said:


> the rest of us can watch your uploaded YouTube videos @ 'Original' (YouTube compression) on our 1600 x 900 laptop screens and say....WOW 8)


You, sir, are an evil man


----------



## DB (Sep 21, 2012)

Rat said:


> peederj said:
> 
> 
> > This is the sort of thing competition is supposed to destroy in a capitalist system. The companies should be releasing the best products they can at a fair markup, not artificially segmenting markets and dribbling out capability when it suits them.
> ...



One of my favourite Prof. J.K. Galbraith quotes:

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite"

But my most favourite of his quotations (and most relevant to this forum) is:

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof"


----------



## bp (Sep 21, 2012)

Feeling enraged over something like this is understandable.

Feeling surprised, on the other hand.... welcome to the world.

Call a local bakery (like a private bakery type place, not a grocery store) and ask for a quote for a birthday cake to feed a party of 50. Now hang up and call them back a half hour later, and ask for a quote for a wedding cake to feed a party of 50.


----------



## DB (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*

...and yet another way of looking at it is, if ML crack the 1DX and enable 4K video recording, Canon may then be faced with the choice of either (a) reducing the price of the 1DC to $6995, or (b) raising the price of the 1DX to $12,995


----------



## bvukich (Sep 21, 2012)

If it makes you feel any better... think of it as getting a 1DC with a couple of disabled features for half price.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

We all have our opinions; We have all ranted, ... Good for all of us!


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



simonxu11 said:


> It's Canon, you know it!!



In Canon's defense, for once: For computer software (and the firmware is) it's absolutely normal to charge thousands of $$$ to enable additional features - esp. if it's expert software like CAD or 1dc video firmware. Even if the code would be in the firmware already but disabled doesn't mean everybody is free to use it, the manufacturer has to calculate a business model if he plans to ship different versions.



DB said:


> ...and yet another way of looking at it is, if ML crack the 1DX and enable 4K video recording



ML never hacked or cracked anything (!!!), they only use firmware hooks Canon freely exposes though they are not documented. PLEASE don't spread wrong rumors, ml is not about torpedoing Canon's business model or camera lineup.


----------



## DB (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



Marsu42 said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > It's Canon, you know it!!
> ...



If Canon freely exposes, then why do Canon Europe say using ML will invalidate your Warranty?


----------



## DB (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*

Apple Inc. uses a 'walled-garden' (software term) for their App Store, but they allow developers to develop add-ons for their iPhone/iPod/iPad etc. So why don't Canon just license ML and split the firmware fee (royalty sharing like Apple who take 30%).


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



DB said:


> If Canon freely exposes, then why do Canon Europe say using ML will invalidate your Warranty?



Source? From everything I've ever read Canon acknowledges users' rights to use firmware addons as long as they don't fry their cameras.

Concerning the hooks: Canon "exposes" them for internal debugging & development, ml simply uses them w/o explicit permission.


----------



## DB (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*

My canon authorized dealer in Dublin when I asked this week about my 7D (which is <1 year old), plus in the ML manual, the following:

_"Canon support maintains that any upgrades to the software of the camera not performed by an authorized Canon Repair Facility or installed as directed by Canon, would void the warranty. Thus you should consider it likely that damage occuring to your camera while using Magic Lantern software would not be covered under your Warranty, should Canon challenge the Warranty on that basis. Whether or not their position would hold up legally, has not been tested."_

Basically, you use ML at your own risk. I believe most Canon users already knew this to be the case.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*

Any software development types here that can give the masses an idea of how different the code would have to be to handle the 4K video stream? It seems like the general thought is that its easy/free to 'turn on' this feature, but I'm guessing there is more to it than that.

-Brian


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



DB said:


> _"Canon support maintains that any upgrades to the software of the camera not performed by an authorized Canon Repair Facility or installed as directed by Canon, would void the warranty. Thus you should consider it likely that damage occuring to your camera while using Magic Lantern software would not be covered under your Warranty, should Canon challenge the Warranty on that basis. Whether or not their position would hold up legally, has not been tested."_



This special case might not have been legally tested, but with a reason - Canon would most likely loose. The whole "unscrew anything and you void your warranty" fud is void at least in the EU, it has been established over and over that you don't void a warranty by using a product. And ml just installs just one flag in the firmware, that's it. Ok, frying your cpu with an alpha ml version might be a warranty problem - but *any* damage occurring while ml is installed is bs.


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



Marsu42 said:


> DB said:
> 
> 
> > _"Canon support maintains that any upgrades to the software of the camera not performed by an authorized Canon Repair Facility or installed as directed by Canon, would void the warranty. Thus you should consider it likely that damage occuring to your camera while using Magic Lantern software would not be covered under your Warranty, should Canon challenge the Warranty on that basis. Whether or not their position would hold up legally, has not been tested."_
> ...



The problem is: how you prove that the damage wasn't caused by ML, if Canon says so?


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



Albi86 said:


> The problem is: how you prove that the damage wasn't caused by ML, if Canon says so?



That's of course the general warranty problem I cannot help with. But imho Canon is unlikely to say to because I've never heard they've done it in the past, and next to that they have to discover that you were using ml in the first place - as long as your camera is in a working state you can simply uninstall the bootflag w/o trace.


----------



## peederj (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



bbasiaga said:


> Any software development types here that can give the masses an idea of how different the code would have to be to handle the 4K video stream? It seems like the general thought is that its easy/free to 'turn on' this feature, but I'm guessing there is more to it than that.
> 
> -Brian



It may in fact involve doing _less_ rather than more in the pipeline. If they use the native resolution of the sensor for their 4K (which they do, it's simply cropped to native res) you won't have to do a downsampling step. The rest of your processing can be the same pipeline as stills as long as the processors can handle the throughput without power or heat problems. The codec at the end will have more data to process, but the codecs can handle that and are industry standards. In both cases, the 1DC proves that the stock 1DX hardware is capable of the feat.

If that is the case, then the 1DX is exactly a _crippled_ version of the 1DC: resolution-destroying code is inserted into the firmware of the 1DX that is left out of the 1DC. This might not be terribly hard to hack; I can think of two approaches off hand instantly.


----------



## Rat (Sep 21, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> The problem is: how you prove that the damage wasn't caused by ML, if Canon says so?


If you f**k around with third party software, I don't think you're entitled to ask that question if all goes belly-up. 

It's all been checked for you. You want to have no warranty issues, you know what the price is. But then this'll probably be all about the price not being fair. 

And then to think I'm not even remotely capitalist...


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2012)

Rat said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is: how you prove that the damage wasn't caused by ML, if Canon says so?
> ...



Just make sure you removed your ML CF card before tossing the body over to Canon


----------



## rh81photo (Sep 21, 2012)

*Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade*



peederj said:


> It may in fact involve doing _less_ rather than more in the pipeline. If they use the native resolution of the sensor for their 4K (which they do, it's simply cropped to native res) you won't have to do a downsampling step. The rest of your processing can be the same pipeline as stills as long as the processors can handle the throughput without power or heat problems. The codec at the end will have more data to process, but the codecs can handle that and are industry standards. In both cases, the 1DC proves that the stock 1DX hardware is capable of the feat.
> 
> If that is the case, then the 1DX is exactly a _crippled_ version of the 1DC: resolution-destroying code is inserted into the firmware of the 1DX that is left out of the 1DC. This might not be terribly hard to hack; I can think of two approaches off hand instantly.



this got me thinking. some thoughts to that: the resolution destruction does significantly reduce the amount of data that the pipeline(s) has to deal with. that may be the reason why they use 4k 8bit on the 1Dc. also: if the 1DX shoots jpeg the framerate can be higher. so maybe one of the downstream pipelines is not capable of processing more and somewhere upstream (the DIGICs maybe?) the downsizing(resolution, bit-depth) and/or jpeg encoding takes place...
another thing: the 1DX has roughly the same resolution as the 7D, right? what if the dual digic4s could already do some of the stuff the dual DIGIC5+'s can? I'm not asking for 4k here, but what if 2.5k would be possible...argh! I'm off into dreamland here...


----------



## DB (Sep 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Rat said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



What if your camera was 'bricked' whilst running ML and taking the batteries/CF card out did not reset. Well ML are not going to fix it and your friendly neighborhood Canon dealer will be asked to and when they plug your camera into their diagnostic computer...well...who knows what they'll say

To be honest, I'm sure Canon would replace a camera if ML or modified firmware locked it up, because they would probably want to test the camera and find out why....btw this is why I never installed ML on my T2i when I had it


----------



## Kumakun (Sep 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > Unethical... Immoral...
> ...



Ahahaha! I love that movie! And as someone who bought the 5DIII early on, I completely agree with your point. (I live in Japan and bought it in June, and converting the yen came out to more than $3500). Sure, I would have been happier if it had been less expensive. But no Canon enforcers came by to drag me down to Yodobashi Camera and force me to buy it.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 21, 2012)

It is possible that this has veered so far off-topic that there is no getting it back on, but...

It occurred to me it's ironic and hypocritical for photographers to even be having this argument. 

Photographer A and Photographer B both shoot a wedding. Photographer A charges $800 and Photographer B charges $8,000. 

Photographer A's images are out of focus, improperly exposed, mundane and uninspiring. Photographer B's pictures are not only technically perfect, but they are absolutely luminous, capture the moments perfectly and positively soar.

But wait, Photographer B admits that he USED THE EXACT SAME CAMERA as Photographer A. All of the difference is in the software holding the camera. 

Clearly Photographer B is immoral and unethical.


----------



## DB (Sep 21, 2012)

unfocused said:


> It is possible that this has veered so far off-topic that there is no getting it back on, but...
> 
> It occurred to me it's ironic and hypocritical for photographers to even be having this argument.
> 
> ...



Nope! Photographer B was just cleverly using his gear better. But if you're looking for immorality and poor ethics, what about Photographer C who employed Photographer A (as a sub-contractor) to shoot the wedding, but charged the couple the same $8,000 fee as Photographer B, whose great pictures he pinched wirelessly during the ceremony and then passed them off as his own. (now I've opened another can of worms WiFi Photographic security)


----------



## peederj (Sep 21, 2012)

If Photographer B intentionally lobotomized Photographer A, ruining their photographic and earning ability for the remainder of their useful life, Photographer B would at minimum be immoral and unethical.

OK, we're getting a bit beyond the pale, but there are valid arguments that this behavior is immoral and unethical in that there exists some degree of compact between consumer and manufacturer that one won't unfairly take advantage of the other. The fact of transition costs from system to system (lenses etc.) mean that this can indeed rise to the level of betrayal. You can say that we should have known there was such a possibility beforehand, but that's like saying Photographer A should have known Photographer B might have been a sociopath.



unfocused said:


> It is possible that this has veered so far off-topic that there is no getting it back on, but...
> 
> It occurred to me it's ironic and hypocritical for photographers to even be having this argument.
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2012)

Kumakun said:


> Ahahaha! I love that movie!



"Since the invention of the Internet argument, there have been five Internet arguments that were rated the most passionate, the most pure... This one isn't one of them."


----------

