most current 300d firmware??

[c0ntr0lz]

i'm on 1.1.1
is that the most current?

[dn7elson]

i'm on 1.1.1 is that the most current?

Yes. See:

http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/BeBit-e.html

[c0ntr0lz]

ok kool

[mttmrphy]

Unless you want the hacked firmware that gives you some custom functions like the 10D.


Its been discussed here plenty...

[DReb-MO]

Have you installed the "hacked" version? Feedback? Regrets? Pro's Con's? Thanks. :?

[EXA1a]

Have you installed the "hacked" version? Feedback? Regrets? Pro's Con's? Thanks. :?
The modified 300D firmware from a Russian Canon lover works fine for me. Not a single disadvantage for daily use. I use two features:
1. FEC with the SET button (very convenient!)
2. Change RAW-embedded JPEG quality/size. Set it to small when you want the max number of RAW pics for a given flash memory, or set it to large/fine when you want to easily extract the JPEG from the RAW file without the necessity of postprocessing.
No regrets. The only theoretical disadvantage is if the camera dies completely and you therefore can't transfer back the original firmware, your warranty might be void. Maybe not.

--Jens--

[DReb-MO]

Can you post the link to this "hacked" version? Did it take any functionality away? Thanks.

[EXA1a]

Can you post the link to this "hacked" version? Did it take any functionality away? Thanks.
It does not take away ANY functionality.
I cannot find the link to Russia but in the dpreview forum someone has mirrored and unpacked the latest version I know of:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=8369897
By the way, Phil from dpreview has banned any links to the modified firmware. I don't know why. In my opinion this firmware only unhides 300D features which Canon forgot to activate.
Here is another one:
http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html

--Jens--

[mttmrphy]

The alternative firmware works great...

[Calis]

What difference to RAW file size do you get reducing the embedded JPEG to it's smallest level?

e.g. on a 512MB card I get 69 pictures at the default setting. How many would i get with the minimum size JPEG?.

Also can you back up the 'proper' firmware - to re-install if you need to send the camera back?

Thanks

[Calis]

What difference to RAW file size do you get reducing the embedded JPEG to it's smallest level?

e.g. on a 512MB card I get 69 pictures at the default setting. How many would i get with the minimum size JPEG?.

Also can you back up the 'proper' firmware - to re-install if you need to send the camera back?

Thanks

[Spaz]

72 or 73 RAWs on 512mb CF with small embeded JPG

[theoldmoose]

I wouldn't bother with it to get small JPGs in the RAWs. It doesn't really get you that many more shots, and compact flash cards in the 512MB category are inexpensive these days. Better to have a spare card than to push your luck with not having enough on hand for a shoot.

That said, I'd go for it to get the large JPEG/Fine for the same reason as EXA1a gave above. If you nail the shot, why bother with the RAW workflow, if you decide you don't need it?

As far as FEC, that's important if you don't go for the 550EX flash like I did. The 550EX lets you set FEC on the flash, and also gives you a number of other nice features that aren't normally supported in the Digital Rebel firmware, and for which a hack doesn't exist (yet).

Lastly, Phil's banning of links to the hacked firmware just goes to show why you can't trust a site that is supported by various manufacturers' advertising and goodwill (for review cameras). One can always be persuaded to suppress information if you are beholdin' to someone, somewhere.

[PhotosGuy]

Couldn't find it? For some reason known only to Canon, the 300D updates are on the Powershot site:
http://www.powershot.com/ciw/ppg/EOSDigitalRebel.html

[KennyG]

Lastly, Phil's banning of links to the hacked firmware just goes to show why you can't trust a site that is supported by various manufacturers' advertising and goodwill (for review cameras). One can always be persuaded to suppress information if you are beholdin' to someone, somewhere.

I think it has more to do with Phil making sure he stays on the right side of the law. Making copyright code (even modified) available for download other than from official sources is illegal in most countries. Allowing links to said hacked firmware could be classified as aiding and abetting. I don't blame Phil for this at all, and I do not think it has anything to do with who supports his sites.

RG's site is even tougher on what it will/won't allow for similar reasons.

[PhotosGuy]

Making copyright code (even modified) available for download other than from official sources is illegal in most countries.

I don't intend to use it in the near future, but I look at the issue this way.
The Win 'operating system' :cry: is probably © 70,000 different ways. Does that mean that I can't modify the way my computer operates? No, it doesn't. There are a lot of programs out there that ‘hack’ Win, most provide better utility & security for the user, & no one is calling them illegal.
I own my camera, too, & wouldn't feel guilty to modify it any way I want to.

Canon installed disabled code in the cams. If we're clever enough to enable it, then I see no ethical reason why we shouldn't.

[gcogger]

If you want to see more opinions on this matter, do a search on the dpreview forum. The legality of the hack was discussed to an excessive degree...

[msvadi]

In my opinion this firmware only unhides 300D features which Canon forgot to activate.


It's not that they forgot to activate those features. Probably, to save time and to put the camera on the market as fast as possible, they used fragments developed for the 10D. And, I guess, they did not want the DRebel to have all those features to make it more like the film Rebel's line. As a result, our DRebels now have hidden powers ;)

I though that they may change it after they release the 10D replacement. But now I think that there never will be an official firmware upgrade for the DRebel that will activate intentionally disabled features. They want to keep the DRebel as basic, entry level DSLR.

[theoldmoose]

Making copyright code (even modified) available for download other than from official sources is illegal in most countries.

I don't intend to use it in the near future, but I look at the issue this way.
The Win 'operating system' :cry: is probably © 70,000 different ways. Does that mean that I can't modify the way my computer operates? No, it doesn't. There are a lot of programs out there that ‘hack’ Win, most provide better utility & security for the user, & no one is calling them illegal.
I own my camera, too, & wouldn't feel guilty to modify it any way I want to.

Canon installed disabled code in the cams. If we're clever enough to enable it, then I see no ethical reason why we shouldn't.

Yeah, the problem is not whether you can hack your own camera. The sticky part is when someone else hacks their camera, and then posts a modified version of Canon's copyrighted code for download. This is a derived work from copyrighted material, and falls under copyright laws in most jurisdictions.

Now, if they wanted to stay more on the legal side, they would post instead a script that would let you take a legal copy of the Canon code you upload from the camera, modify it, and then re-download. And you can upload your firmware, using software you can download for a Linux system, you can browse the camera's internal DOS-based filesystem, and freely copy any of the files in the internal flash.

At that point, Canon wouldn't have anything to say about copyright infringment. Making a backup copy of your camera's firmware for personal use is considered fair use by most sane folks.

The other issue, though, is the license agreement they make you click through when you go to get the latest firmware update off of their web site. Among other things, they forbid you to disassamble, etc.,etc. the code, which (if you believe that click-through agreements are legal, but that's another long-winded debate) would prohibit you from hacking that particular firmware.

The loophole (if there is one) is that you never had to break a seal on your original carton that said that you agreed to not hack your camera code (the version that was shipped in the camera). You did have to break a seal on the software shipped on CD that was included in the carton, but it doesn't include an image of the firmware in the camera. Neither did you have to do any seal-breaking and agreeing to anything when you opened the bags with the manuals, even though there may be a notice in the manual against hacking the camera code (I don't recall, but it's immaterial, because it's not considered proper notice by most sane people).

All in all, Canon's legal department dropped the ball on this. Anyone that got a camera with the current firmware in it already, could conceiveably download a patches-only script from someone, and use it to patch his own camera (or come up with hacks of their own), and Canon legal would have a hard time proving anything criminal in court.

And frankly, even a big company like Canon can ill-afford to treat their customer like criminals (unlike the RIAA and the MPAA), and stay in business for very long.

My advice is, do what you like to your own camera, but don't go waving it around :lol: . I would think it quite unlikely that Canon will send their corporate thugs to your door.