# Sony does a "Canon" (manufacturer ethics)



## leGreve (Aug 29, 2014)

So... it's all over the community web, and it puts yet again focus on the manufacturing ethics surrounding cameras and what potential they really hold.

For some years now, we seen several Canon Eos cameras delivering a lot more than Canon wanted them to in the Magic Lantern hacks.

Now it's Sony's turn. While it's not per say a hack but more of a tweak, it does raise the question what we really pay for when we pay for "better" and "newer" tech, in fx firmware upgrades.

It turns out that cinematographer Paul Reams have by chance enabled internal 4K in the Sony F5 camera, something which only it's bigger brother (and 12.000 dollars more expensive) F55 was able to until now.

In short, the F5 contains preference file that you can adjust because it's simply a .txt file. Reams found out that by fiddling with the resolution setting the F5 would suddenly allow him to record internal 4K XAVC without having to spend money on the add ons like the Odessey 7Q.

So what was Sony's plan with this camera? Were they going to offer paid "upgrades" a year from now, magically turning the F5 into a native 4K camera? The same way they messed up with the paid F3 upgrade (that suddenly became free).....

It begs the question if manufacturers in their chase for profit have stepped over their ethics to such a degree that it has become embarrassing and down right disrespectful.

But what do we do about it?

At the moment, I just have the deepest respect for Reams actually sharing this info with us......


----------



## Arthur_Nunes (Aug 29, 2014)

same thing with 1D-X and 1D-C

I guess the F3 FM upgrade had the same law issues that Canon's CEO or president (don't remember each one) once talked about.

when asked about a paid firmware to make 1D-X reach 1D-C or at least extend its capabilities closer to 1D-C. He told that its not going to happen because of how many different laws of many different countries would approach such selling and they could have tax problems or make a big effort to avoid them


----------



## Roo (Aug 29, 2014)

It's no different to any number of different products ie the manufacturers release product that may greater capability but it's detuned to perform reliably within its hardware specs. You could always overclock a pc processor or flash a car engine chip to unleash more performance but at what effect on overall reliability? Which is more ethical, releasing a reliable product or releasing something that has great capability but breaks down when you need it most?


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 29, 2014)

leGreve said:


> It begs the question if manufacturers in their chase for profit have stepped over their ethics to such a degree that it has become embarrassing and down right disrespectful.



The idea that manufacturers restrict features on lower-end cameras has been discussed before. It's not just that they're hobbling their cheaper cameras to sell the more expensive ones, though that's probably part of it. Remember that the extra data from a 4K places a burden on the rest of the electronics in the camera; if that can't keep up it will be a poor experience for the user. Remember that every feature generates some amount of work for the manufacturer's customer support team, and that's built into the price structure of the camera. A nice feature that works poorly will generate a lot of calls to tech support, which costs a lot of money.

I'm willing to believe it's market manipulation if there's reason to believe the "found" feature works reliably: doesn't cause damage/excessive wear on the camera, and wouldn't generate more tech support calls.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2014)

leGreve said:


> So... it's all over the community web, and it puts yet again focus on the manufacturing ethics surrounding cameras and what potential they really hold.


"Ethics" has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with this!

Any manufacturer - _any_ - is utterly within its rights to sell whatever it wants to sell, and as long as it delivers whatever its product description promises, that's the manufacturer's "ethical" responsibility here satisfied in full.

Canon isn't a charity, and it doesn't owe us a thing: if we don't like what they do, we don't buy from them. 

_It's that simple_.

But if we really want to talk about Canon's ethics:

http://www.canon.com/scsa/index.html
http://www.canon.com/environment/index.html 

There are few more (truly) ethical large companies on the planet than Canon; and no other camera manufacturer _comes close_.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 29, 2014)

This isn't _Ethics_, it's _Business._ Thread posts like this tend to generate angst where none is needed. Has the OP considered the big picture? (Pun alert.)

As a consumer, I understand (and sympathize) with wanting as much camera and as many features as possible from a given design, esp when it costs thousands of dollars. However, Canon is a business and they do whatever they think will make them profitable and desirable at the same time. If this means making one camera design for two cameras and restricting one with firmware to save production cost, fine. I don't care.

Be glad that Canon doesn't stomp and mash entities like Magic Lantern for messing with their firmware and exposing features or causing errors that very well might cost Canon money in negative product perceptions or slightly elevated support/warranty costs. Compare Canon's tolerance with ML hacks to Apple. ML has existed for years and Canon hasn't done much to thwart them in firmware roadblocks or shut them down with lawyers. We all know what would happen if ML was trying to hack Apple products!! If you want to discuss poor ethics, take a look at Apple. They've been suing people since the 80's. They even sue people for petty things like having a name that just _sounds_ like "apple". http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2409669,00.asp

And while we're on the subject of ethics, be glad Canon's ethics don't dictate that they should wage all out legal war on third party companies that make tons of identical third party accessories like intervalometers, flashes, grips, etc to compete with Canon's overpriced accessories. (Because Canon could if they wanted to, that's what Apple does constantly all over the world.)

Fortunately, Canon is savvy enough to realize that their upper end market is intelligent and entities like ML actually help boost the popularity of Canon products in the long run. Many photographers that can afford the Canon EOS line usually buy new gear regardless of what ML may offer them on their older gear. In fact, they might buy new gear because of what ML can give them with that too! I put ML in the same realm as the IR mod folks who give you a new way to use a great camera that Canon doesn't offer. And that's great in my book.

*Thank you Canon for resisting the urge to bully the little guys who hack your products! (And expose a few little features and secrets in the process.)*


----------



## mmenno (Aug 29, 2014)

I agree that there is absolutely nothing unethical about disabling features in firmware on lower priced models. The research that went into developing those features costs money, so if you'd like to use them, pay for them. Would you also find it unethical for a software company to make you pay for a license, when all it takes to unlock full functionality is typing in a serial number?


----------



## rs (Aug 29, 2014)

mmenno said:


> I agree that there is absolutely nothing unethical about disabling features in firmware on lower priced models. The research that went into developing those features costs money, so if you'd like to use them, pay for them. Would you also find it unethical for a software company to make you pay for a license, when all it takes to unlock full functionality is typing in a serial number?


It's standard practice in many industries. For instance, 15 years ago Volvo found it was cheaper to build all their cars with central locking, and then disable that feature through software on the cheaper models than to design, engineer, test and produce a whole new locking system for the cheaper models.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 29, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> leGreve said:
> 
> 
> > So... it's all over the community web, and it puts yet again focus on the manufacturing ethics surrounding cameras and what potential they really hold.
> ...



My thoughts exactly. Whether its Sony, Nikon, Canon or any other company – if they deliver the product they promised to deliver at the price they promised to charge, then what's your complaint?


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

Arthur_Nunes said:


> same thing with 1D-X and 1D-C
> 
> I guess the F3 FM upgrade had the same law issues that Canon's CEO or president (don't remember each one) once talked about.
> 
> when asked about a paid firmware to make 1D-X reach 1D-C or at least extend its capabilities closer to 1D-C. He told that its not going to happen because of how many different laws of many different countries would approach such selling and they could have tax problems or make a big effort to avoid them


I thought Canon had also said that there were some differences in terms of sensor cooling. Maybe not enough to justify the difference, but one hopes they aren't identical other than the badge & firmware. 

I think it's cool this guy hacked the Sony, though!


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2014)

Roo said:


> It's no different to any number of different products ie the manufacturers release product that may greater capability but it's detuned to perform reliably within its hardware specs. You could always overclock a pc processor or flash a car engine chip to unleash more performance but at what effect on overall reliability? Which is more ethical, releasing a reliable product or releasing something that has great capability but breaks down when you need it most?


+1

One thing that so many people neglect is heat. The hardware might be able to support 4K video for a while, but doing so might raise internal temperatures to the point where the lifespan of the electronics is shortened. What this sounds like to me is that the camera was developed with the intentions of providing 4K video and all the software/firmware was written for it, but when they got into the field testing they discovered the heat buildup problems and disabled that mode.

Sony is not going to sell you a product that they think will die while still under warranty...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Aug 29, 2014)

i stop buying sony brand after its famous spyware/root kit in the past...


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Sony is not going to sell you a product that they think will die while still under warranty...


Then why have the last 3 products I've bought from them done just that - whether it was a 90-day, 1-year or 3-year warranty. Wait, they died just days after the warranty was up - making me a tad perturbed. I know you're kidding, but I'm not. I've given up on expecting quality from Sony, which is sad given that they used to be famous for it.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Sony is not going to sell you a product that they think will die while still under warranty...
> ...


My Olympus E-510 died on the day after the warranty expired.... To be fair, they fixed it for free....


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Now that's service and I'm happy to hear that. Panasonic also has great service from my experience and as an example - another hobby of mine is home theater - I used to be a movie theatre projectionist. I bought a Sony Blu-ray player when it first came out. It was a POS and Sony released a new model less than a year later and essentially stopped supporting my model. On the other hand, I have an old Panasonic DVD player (and new Blu-ray as well) and was shocked about a year ago to see that they had just released a firmware update for the 7-year-old DVD player! They did the same with my Lumix LX-5 camera as well.


----------



## Arthur_Nunes (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Arthur_Nunes said:
> 
> 
> > same thing with 1D-X and 1D-C
> ...



they said about cooling indeed, but we are talking about 4 thousand dollar worth of heat sinks and better performance wires and components. Since the weight difference of both cameras is about 150g, lets assume 1D-X already have 150g of heat sink, even if 1D-C had 300g of pure silver heat sink, it would cost only about 300 dollars of passive cooling.

while I was writing this, I've found the article about 1D's I told about.

http://petapixel.com/2012/09/22/canons-1d-c-cinema-dslr-is-simply-a-1d-x-with-different-firmware/

I know anyone can write anything on web, but we know that its not about 4,000 of aditional hardware. Like RustyTheGeek said, its about business and the costs are also based on the benefits customers will have from the equipment


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

Arthur_Nunes said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Arthur_Nunes said:
> ...


....if they used platinum for the heat sink 

The real issue is that the 1D X is an expensive stills camera while the 1D C (Blackmagic exluded) is a relatively inexpensive 4k video camera. Price and components frequently have little to with each other. Just take a look at the iPhone - which is estimated to cost around $199-220 to make, but sells for $649-849 without a contract.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


Speaking of outstanding customer service... *EPSON*. A client had a high end projector that was about 5 months out of the 2 year warranty and it had a problem with the motorized lens cover. After trying a firmware update, my client called them, provided proof of the sale with the receipt and they SHIPPED HIM A NEW PROJECTOR FREE OF CHARGE with instructions to return the faulty projector back to them afterwards in the same container. THEY EVEN PAID FOR SHIPPING. Simply amazing! 8)


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

Rusty, that is amazing, and it's nice to hear about good customer service for once.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Rusty, that is amazing, and it's nice to hear about good customer service for once.


Yeah, I agree. However, service like that has got to be expensive for Epson. IMO, there are different levels of customer service that apply to different products and price points. If a price is the only concern, I don't expect service at that level because it would drive up the price. But for products that are luxury items in the first place, cost thousands of dollars and reputation is important, I think this is the best way to go. With that in mind, wouldn't it be great if this was how Canon took care of all their camera problems?


----------



## psolberg (Sep 2, 2014)

I'm sure you can take a 5DMKII and D700 and improve them. However it doesn't make financial sense to do so for either company. Once you release it, it becomes very costly to update the hardware to use 100% of its resources because a mess up doesn't break the test mules in the lab, it hurts real users and has a cost in PR that is not worth the risk. Therefore we can expect nearly all cameras are not utilized as good as if companies spent years fine tuning them. After all, if sony didn't ship because they are tweaking with the firmware, the financial consequences would be a disaster bigger than if they ship with slightly under utilized hardware potential.

Not to say this is the same case in all examples but often yields of semiconductors mean lower binned parts are going to be repurposed for some lower spec model. we see this all the time with intel and AMD's budget chips. They may start as higher end models but due to yield issues they are crippled. Occasionally somebody hacks them somehow to enable more potential, but this solution doesn't work universally. We still don't know all the cons of this hack. It may be ok, it may not be. Whatever the case, even with a perfectly good part, it may simply be a cost move. Develop the same part, with some firmware to unlock the more expensive sku. There is nothing unethical about it. You paid less, you get less. Car manufacturers do the same, often shipping the same engine less aggressively tuned. you can reflash the ECU and unlock some gains too.

so this is business as usual. without spreading around RD cost in the high and low end offerings, you'd have to settle for less long term. These companies aren't charities. They need to turn a profit and as long as they are not lying about the spec sheet, you decide if what they offer is worth to you. In the case of the sony model, if it specs and price were better than the alternative at the time, who cares? clearly the competition should have been better if they wanted to make the sale.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 3, 2014)

Speaking of outstanding customer service... *EPSON*. A client had a high end projector that was about 5 months out of the 2 year warranty and it had a problem with the motorized lens cover. After trying a firmware update, my client called them, provided proof of the sale with the receipt and they SHIPPED HIM A NEW PROJECTOR FREE OF CHARGE with instructions to return the faulty projector back to them afterwards in the same container. THEY EVEN PAID FOR SHIPPING. Simply amazing! 8)
[/quote]

My HP 24 port smart switch died last week during a lightening storm (It was on a filtered UPS), I bought it in 2009, for about $200, so I was going to buy another, since I liked it. I checked the HP site, and their warranty calculator said the warranty was good until 2109 (100 year warranty??). I sent them a e-mail with serial number, and the other info, they overnighted a replacement to me, along with a return label.

Needless to say I was happy with the service.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 5, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> My HP 24 port smart switch died last week during a lightening storm (It was on a filtered UPS), I bought it in 2009, for about $200, so I was going to buy another, since I liked it. I checked the HP site, and their warranty calculator said the warranty was good until 2109 (100 year warranty??). I sent them a e-mail with serial number, and the other info, they overnighted a replacement to me, along with a return label.
> 
> Needless to say I was happy with the service.



Most of the procurve switches are "lifetime warranty" - assuming you don't live past 100 years that is  

Thank you for your purchase (back in 2009) and for helping to feed my family!


----------

