Has the 300D Hack Finally Reached Respectability?

[scottbergerphoto]

The new issue of PC World magazine prominently displays a Canon 300D and recommends the 300D Hack and even has a link to it on the PC World web site.
Scott

[Belmondo]

That's especially courageous considering the number of warranties that could be voided on their sayso if Canon decides to get nasty about it. (Not saying they would, but they could.)

[tommykjensen]

That's especially courageous considering the number of warranties that could be voided on their sayso if Canon decides to get nasty about it. (Not saying they would, but they could.)

Canon Denmark have specially said warrenties are void if they get a 300D in for service with the hack or if they find out the hack was used.

[Cadwell]

What a bizzare stance for PC World Magazine to take... I can't honestly see them promoting a hacked version of a Microsoft product 'cos MS would probably sue them.. why would they do the same for Canon?

This may queer the pitch for the 300D hack entirely. I strongly suspect Canon has been quietly ignoring the whole hack thing, as to an extent it's probably actually helping 300D sales against the Nik*n D70... Now they may have to take an "official stance" on the matter.

[Arsonist lolol]

If they do decide to take negative action against it (meaning not servicing a hacked camera) you can just DL new, normal firmware to replace it can't you?

[tommykjensen]

If they do decide to take negative action against it (meaning not servicing a hacked camera) you can just DL new, normal firmware to replace it can't you?

Yes, but if the fault in the camera prevents updating the firmware You have some trouble if Canon decides not to honor the warrenty. This is why I never used the hack when I had the 300D.

[griff2]

Yes, but if the fault in the camera prevents updating the firmware You have some trouble if Canon decides not to honor the warrenty. This is why I never used the hack when I had the 300D.
Same here. I'm not prepared to use the hack in case I have to send the camera back - and I'm having error 99 problems with it, so it may have to go back.

[MrChad]

The warranty is only good for 1yr right? 1yr is plenty time to get sick of the non hacked ECU :D

They can't void an out of warranty product, you own it not them. It's not like the Hack is stolen software, you can't purchase a firmwire update with more features can you?

[shaun3000]

The warranty is only one year so after that it doesn't matter. The hack is very easy to remove. Set everything back to the default and flash back to the official Canon firmware.

Hacking the 300D is no different than using commercially-available computer software to modify the various paramaters of a modern car's on-board computer. When you pay that much for something you should be able to do with it as you please.

If the "hack" involved physically changing the camera, either electronic components or other physical modifications, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. But as soon as we start modifying the firmware everyone gets all ancy.

[tim]

I hacked my 300D once I knew enough to realise how helpful it would be. I figured it was reversable in all except the worst warranty repair situation.

[CyberDyneSystems]

PC World is seriously going to "ruin it for everyone" :(

All I hope is that at the very least they get there buts sued in the process,...

[Vega$50]

I purchased the 300d instead of the 10D with the express purpose of placing the hack on it. It was of course after I researched and made sure folks were not having problems with the software. I am at almost 5000 and not one hiccup. It is sound and well put together. I would wholeheartedly endorse it. I don't see where Canon would have a foot to sue for this. The end user, following the mag's recommendation may. But what do I know....all I can think about it what lens I want next.

[Persian-Rice]

Wow, that is odd. Most publications have lawyers review their stuff. How the hell did this slip?

[Redbird_xo]

The new issue of PC World magazine prominently displays a Canon 300D and recommends the 300D Hack and even has a link to it on the PC World web site.
Scott

I think with or without any magazine's "endorsement," the hack firmware has won many hearts of the D300 users. PC World is simply trying to take a free ride on the fame, and, like their contents, they are always a few steps behind.

[Belmondo]

I haven't seen the article. With the right caveats, it could be okay.

Computer magazines like to do things like over-clocking processors, so maybe this is just a further manifestation of that mindset.

[tommykjensen]

The warranty is only good for 1yr right? 1yr is plenty time to get sick of the non hacked ECU :D


In Denmark we have 2 year warranty (by law).

[Cadwell]

It's not like the Hack is stolen software, you can't purchase a firmwire update with more features can you?

I am afraid the hack is very much stolen software. The hacker has taken Canon's original firmware, which is their intellectual property, modified it and then distributed it without their permission. That breaks all kinds of copyright laws and Canon could, if they wished, sue the hacker. In certain jurisdictions there might also be grounds for legal action against users of the hack on a similar basis.

Canon is highly unlikely to do this in my opinion - it would create far too much bad publicity, but they could well go after the hacker.

[jwcdds]

I am afraid the hack is very much stolen software. The hacker has taken Canon's original firmware, which is their intellectual property, modified it and then distributed it without their permission. That breaks all kinds of copyright laws and Canon could, if they wished, sue the hacker. In certain jurisdictions there might also be grounds for legal action against users of the hack on a similar basis.

I think this is only true if the hacker has repackaged the firmware in a way to profit from it. (It is to my understanding that the hacked firmware is free for download.) Assuming the hacker bought his own 300D, the camera, its components, its one copy of the software/firmware becomes legal property of the purchasee. Therefore, he can piss on it, paint it black, throw it against a wall, into a swimming pool, and even attempt to modify the original firmware.

I haven't seen the fine print but I'm sure wherever you can download the hack, it is written quite clearly that you do so at your own risk.

Again, all bets are out the door if the hacker is selling the hacked firmware for profit.

[tommykjensen]

I think this is only true if the hacker has repackaged the firmware in a way to profit from it. (It is to my understanding that the hacked firmware is free for download.) Assuming the hacker bought his own 300D, the camera, its components, its one copy of the software/firmware becomes legal property of the purchasee. Therefore, he can piss on it, paint it black, throw it against a wall, into a swimming pool, and even attempt to modify the original firmware.

But he can't legally redisttribute it as he is doing.


Again, all bets are out the door if the hacker is selling the hacked firmware for profit.

With that in mind, do You think Adobe will think it is ok if someone downloads the FREE trial version, modifies it so it can run longer than the free trial period and then distributes it for free?? NOOOT!

[jwcdds]

But he can't legally redisttribute it as he is doing.

With that in mind, do You think Adobe will think it is ok if someone downloads the FREE trial version, modifies it so it can run longer than the free trial period and then distributes it for free?? NOOOT!

Well, then one must try to prove/argue that the hacked firmware has hurt Canon's profit that is typically generated from the original firmware (which is none). Surely one could argue and speculate that some of these consumers would've then elect to purchase the 10D, but one could just as easily argue that they would have gone by way of the Nikon D70 and other competitors. One could also speculate that the hacked firmware helped push people teetering on the prosumer/p&s purchase towards purchasing the DReb, therefore opening them up to the world of lens investments = increased profit for Canon that would have been missed had the consumer purchase a fixed lens camera. Lots of speculation, all equally room for doubt, therefore resulting in no solid case in court.

In this instance, the only way that someone can make use of the hacked 300D firmware is to buy/own the 300D, which precludes the sale and profit that Canon gets from selling the camera to begin with.

Your argument is moot. Adobe makes a profit off the softwares it sells. Canon doesn't make a profit off its firmware. If Canon decided to sell its firmwares separately from the camera then yes, you have a legitimate case in the court of law. Doing so (selling of its own firmware) will have dire consequences in the lost of consumers.

Canon has already done what it can to protect itself, which is to void all warranties should there be signs that the hack firmware was installed/used. I am sure there are protocols in place that will scrutinize every 300D that comes in for warranty service. If nothing else, perhaps this will lead to fail-safe measures to be inplemented in the 350D or whatever the succesor may be, in the form that you can never reset to a previous firmware. Or the camera somehow logs every firmware update in its own little "black box" like on airplanes.

Besides, the hack has been around for quite some time and thus far, does not appear to be assassinating any 300D's in record numbers.

[tommykjensen]

For profit or not it is NOT legal to redistribute the hacked firmware. What each individual that buys the camera do with it and the associated software is their own bussines as long as they do not redistribute it.

If Canon chooses not to do anything is a completely different matter.

[Jonny]

I used the hack on my old 300D and had to return the camera to canon for a warranty repair. Only after i posted did i realize i had forgotten to restore the camera to the original firmware :-s

They fixed it up no problem, nothing was said at all. The service check list even had a section for checking/upgrading the firmware so they must have seen it!

Maybe i was lucky

[jwcdds]

Tommy,

This particular instance isn't a case of legality. Reason being there is insufficient evidence that any party(ies) has been "harmed," except possibly the consumer who chose to install the hacked firmware. Even that is quite gray because he/she who chose to, did so of his/her own accord.

This is more of a moral question. The morality of hacking the firmware. The morality of then making the hack available. And more so, the morality of the individual(s) downloading the firmware and INSTALLING it. A similar analogy could be: There is plenty of free porn on the internet. It is being copied and distributed countless times. Who is downloading them? IMO, it's more of a moral question. Just because it is there doesn't necessitate it as a crime. It's a matter of where the individual stands with his/her moral self on doing the "right" thing.

The legal system serves to protect property, money, things of value. In the case of of the hacked firmware, anyone who chooses to install the hackware must also buy a DReb. In order to form a case, someone has to be able to claim and prove damage was done.

[drisley]

I used the "hack" for months, and enjoyed every minute of it.
When I sold the 300D, I reset everything, and installed the original firmware.
The word "hack" really scares off alot of people. I think it should be referred to as a modified firmware. It's really not a big deal to install/remove, and I've never heard of anybody damaging their camera with it. The absolute worst thing I heard was the inability to install it (user error in that case).
I highly recommend the "modified firmware"

[tommykjensen]

Tommy,

This particular instance isn't a case of legality. Reason being there is insufficient evidence that any party(ies) has been "harmed," except possibly the consumer who chose to install the hacked firmware. Even that is quite gray because he/she who chose to, did so of his/her own accord.

We will never ever agree on this issue so lets end the discussion here.

[MTAtech]

I was considering using the hack on my Digital Rebel. Q: Does the hack make the Rebel's manual useless? In other words, do the same buttons work the same or differently?

My understanding is that the only functions that the hack offers is shooting at 3200 and a bulb setting. Is that true?

[scottbergerphoto]

My understanding is that the only functions that the hack offers is shooting at 3200 and a bulb setting. Is that true?
No.
Custom Functions and FEC are added.
Scott

[griff2]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that firmware upgrades are like BIOS upgrades: occasionally things can go wrong and you can end up with an expensive paperweight. I've had this happen with a motherboard because the floppy disk was slightly dodgy. If you start to upgrade the camera with an official firmware upgrade and things go t!ts up, the camera will be repaired under warrenty (assuming it still is under warrenty) if it's the hacked version, it'll be your fault and you'll end up having to pay.

I got a three-year extended warrenty, and in light of the suspect build quality of the 300D, I'm glad I did.

[tommykjensen]

I got a three-year extended warrenty, and in light of the suspect build quality of the 300D, I'm glad I did.

The build quality is actually quite good. Many users have droped the camera on concrete with no damage to the camera except scratches.

[Jonny]

My understanding is that the only functions that the hack offers is shooting at 3200 and a bulb setting. Is that true?

No, To be honest that is the function that i least wanted.

The most useful function is the mirror lock up which i used a lot. You also get FEC.

[Tom W]

Maybe the hack has Canon's backdoor blessing - especially now when a new D-Reb is probably on the horizon. It isn't a threat to Canon any more, and may not have been in the first place.

[boone]

I think reverse engineering was once legal, but it's now a gray area thanks to the infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Even if it's still legal, you'd probably need an expensive lawyer to prove it. :(

Perhaps the hackers could distribute the hack as a patch for the Canon firmware instead of the actual firmware itself. Then you couldn't argue that they were distributing Canon's property.

[griff2]

The build quality is actually quite good. Many users have droped the camera on concrete with no damage to the camera except scratches I'm not talking robustness, but rather on the quality of the internal mechanical and electronic components. Some of the error 99 messages that many people were experiencing with this camera, were due to a dodgy shutter which canon was forced to admit to and repair.

I'm getting error 99 messages intermittently, with different lenses and sometimes without a lens, but am loath to send the camera back as I'd be without it for a week or so. If the errors get worse, or I decide to sell the camera, I will send it in for repair however.

[tommykjensen]

I'm not talking robustness, but rather on the quality of the internal mechanical and electronic components.

I had a 300D for one year with absolutely no problems except bad photos caused by the person behind the camera ;)

Where do ou have this statement from

Some of the error 99 messages that many people were experiencing with this camera, were due to a dodgy shutter which canon was forced to admit to and repair.

Did Canon say that officially or do You just base this on rumour?

[griff2]

Did Canon say that officially or do You just base this on rumour?
ok, I'll re-phrase. Canon didn't officially admit to the problem, but they did start to replace the shutter on cameras which were returned with the error 99 problem.

Do a Google search on "rebel error 99".

[tommykjensen]

Canon would hardly make an official statement:)

Do a Google search on "rebel error 99".

Why? Will I find a press release or something from Canon stating what You said?

You claim Canon was forced to admit the build quality was dodgy, so pleace back it up with some facts and not hearsays or rumours.

[griff2]

Above edit

[tommykjensen]

Above edit

What????

[Belmondo]

I doubt seriously you will ever see an official confirmation of anything like this. The closest I ever came to something like it was back when the 10D was having a lot of focusing issues. I was at the Canon service facility in Irvine, California, on an unrelated problem (my dropped 100-400L lens), and asked the person behind the counter if they were having a lot of problems with the 10D. He just rolled his eye.

Eventually, I got him to talk a little, and he told me that in the vast majority of cases, the cameras that came in with supposed problems were perfectly okay. Good old mass hysteria.

The closest you will ever see to an acknowledgement of any inherent design/quality problem will be their willingness to fix them without an argument.

[griff2]

ok, I'll re-phrase. Canon didn't officially admit to the problem, but they did start to replace the shutter on cameras which were returned with the error 99 problem.

[CanonAndy]

We need to consider this situation from Canon's perspective.

1. Somebody hacked software which then increases the popularity of their highest volume dslr.
2. Canon reserves the right to void warranties on the cameras (Canon needs a lesson or two from Harley Davidson, who is a serious veteran in the world of customer modifications to Harley's end products). This is rather foolish, since a defect in workmanship or materials can be completely independent of the software installed. (Thats like Ford rejecting a warranty claim on my truck seat because I installed a
Superchip...)

Unless Canon has poor margins on the 300D and accessories (which I HIGHLY doubt), they are benefitting from the 'souped up' 300D market. Unless an OEM faces liability potential from the modifications, the free marketing, increase in high volume assembly runs, and 'tinkering' is a net benefit.

Younger customers who are accustomed to overclocking and tweaking will be much more interested if there is a potential to 'juice up' a camera. We do it already, with a hot lens, big flash, battery packs, and bigger memory cards. Don't try to deny the secret enjoyment of having the newest and baddest hardware. If someone showed up with a 300D modified to match a 1ds, how many of us would be googling for the instructions within 5 minutes???

Even Microsoft, the naysayers of all things hacked, wouldn't be around without the thousands of beta testers, tinkering programmers, and hackers who have tried millions of new tricks with off-the-shelf software. Canon learned a lot from the hack, and I'm SURE there are several hacked 300D's within the walls of Canon's engineering offices.

Bottom line - Canon wasn't hurt by this, they aren't going to sue their customers, and several of us are enjoying a souped up 300D...


Andy

[Tom W]

ok, I'll re-phrase. Canon didn't officially admit to the problem, but they did start to replace the shutter on cameras which were returned with the error 99 problem.

Would you rather that they didn't diagnose and repair cameras that had this error message?

[whenry6000]

We need to consider this situation from Canon's perspective.

1. Somebody hacked software which then increases the popularity of their highest volume dslr.
2. Canon reserves the right to void warranties on the cameras (Canon needs a lesson or two from Harley Davidson, who is a serious veteran in the world of customer modifications to Harley's end products). This is rather foolish, since a defect in workmanship or materials can be completely independent of the software installed. (Thats like Ford rejecting a warranty claim on my truck seat because I installed a
Superchip...)

Unless Canon has poor margins on the 300D and accessories (which I HIGHLY doubt), they are benefitting from the 'souped up' 300D market. Unless an OEM faces liability potential from the modifications, the free marketing, increase in high volume assembly runs, and 'tinkering' is a net benefit.

Younger customers who are accustomed to overclocking and tweaking will be much more interested if there is a potential to 'juice up' a camera. We do it already, with a hot lens, big flash, battery packs, and bigger memory cards. Don't try to deny the secret enjoyment of having the newest and baddest hardware. If someone showed up with a 300D modified to match a 1ds, how many of us would be googling for the instructions within 5 minutes???

Even Microsoft, the naysayers of all things hacked, wouldn't be around without the thousands of beta testers, tinkering programmers, and hackers who have tried millions of new tricks with off-the-shelf software. Canon learned a lot from the hack, and I'm SURE there are several hacked 300D's within the walls of Canon's engineering offices.

Bottom line - Canon wasn't hurt by this, they aren't going to sue their customers, and several of us are enjoying a souped up 300D...


Andy
Actually, while it doesn't hurt sales of the CURRENT camera, it may hurt sales of a successor to the 300D. It forces Canon to make a major upgrade to the camera to make it marketable, instead of an incremental upgrade. However, there are many factors involved, so it's hard to say that they still don't profit from the increased sales of the current camera that they might have lost to a competitor. After all, once a user picks one brand (Nikon or Canon or any other brand) and makes an investment in lenses, more than likely, they will stick with that brand...

[Ogrt48]

Canon hasn't cared when they get a camera in for repairs and its been backed, atleast here in the usa, they don't even replace the hacked firmware, they just fix the camera and send it back. They just dont seem to care :)

[gcogger]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that firmware upgrades are like BIOS upgrades: occasionally things can go wrong and you can end up with an expensive paperweight. I've had this happen with a motherboard because the floppy disk was slightly dodgy. If you start to upgrade the camera with an official firmware upgrade and things go t!ts up, the camera will be repaired under warrenty (assuming it still is under warrenty) if it's the hacked version, it'll be your fault and you'll end up having to pay.
I don't believe that this is an issue on the Rebel/300D. Canon have, quite sensibly, put the code that performs the firmware updates in a region of read-only memory. In other words, the firmware update code does not get overwritten when you do an update. Therefore, even if the update fails half way through, you can still recharge the battery and try again.

[FlyingPete]

So, how long until camera shops start selling 'pre-hacked' 300D's? I have seen this sort of thing before with PC parts, even seen them charge a premium for it. A certain 300Mhz Celeron comes to mind, worked fine at 450Mhz, saw these sold at a premium (but still cheaper than a 450), even put a sticker on the packaging.

[KO_300D]

So, how long until camera shops start selling 'pre-hacked' 300D's?

When it's as easy as spending less than 5 minutes to do your own upgrade for free why would anyone pay more for a pre-hacked version? And let's face it, they'd have to charge extra because no-one's likely to pay the same price for a standard 300d and have less features...

[holycow57]

At what point does Canon just take the hack and provide it above board to all 300dd owners as an upgrade in firmware?

Wouldn't they enhance their PR with base?

I haven't downloaded the hack, but tempted...once used Nikon D100 and after reading what the hack does I see the deficiencies of the 300D.

Please, Canon give us the upgrade.

Randy

[Persian-Rice]

Canon would never do that. That would cut into their 20D sales. It might be slightly slower, but it will have all the same functions. No casual shooter in their right mind would buy a 20D for $1500 if they can have a 300D for $800 and just upgrade the firmware.................

That is having two identical cameras directed toward the average consumer, but one has faster start-up and better ISO performance for only double the price.

[Volatile]

If I were Canon I wouldn't care anymore about hacked firmware because the 10D isn't in production anymore anyways.

[hmhm]

Canon made a decision as to the feature-set that they wanted the 300D to have, in particular they decided to remove certain software features from this lower-end camera, features that are included in the more expensive 10D. They implemented the "removal" of these features in a feeble way, one that allowed a hacker to "break" the protections in the software the prevent access to these features.

Some try to say "hey, Canon should be thankful, this makes the camera better". Answer is "No, the hacker didn't provide new functionality to Canon, he just broke the protections that Canon put in place to prevent access to this functionality. If Canon wanted those features there to compete with other cameras, they wouldn't have blocked off access to them. That's their decision to make."

Some try to say "this isn't bad, cause the guy isn't selling it". Answer is "it doesn't matter, it's still unethical, as he's allowing others to steal".

Some try to say "this is like overclocking a chip". Answer is "no, it's not. A chip is sold by a manufacturer with a max speed at which it's guaranteed to work. If you want to run it at a higher speed, you can, but you've now lost that guarantee, and you're on your own."

Some try to say "this is like changing the firmware parameters in a car". Answer is "no, it's not. A better analogy is the breaking of 'eval only' software, or breaking the registration requirements of Microsoft XP".

Some try to say "but it would be okay if the guy only shipped 'patches'". Answer is "no, it wouldn't, just like it wouldn't be okay if somebody shipped a tiny patch that broke the Microsoft XP registration requirements".

If the "hacker" had implemented the firmware fully from scratch, I'd be fully behind him. But the hack isn't somebody creating value from their own sweat, and then giving it away, he's giving away the result of somebody else's sweat. It's just plain cheesy...

Anyway ... whatever. We all want something for free, even if we have to put our fingers in our ears to avoid hearing that we're being naughty.
-harry

[jwcdds]

Some try to say "this isn't bad, cause the guy isn't selling it". Answer is "it doesn't matter, it's still unethical, as he's allowing others to steal".

"Steal" would entail placing a value on damages incurred on Canon. As stated before, if Canon felt that they were losing too much revenue from this, they would have actively pursued this. It was never an argument of ethics and moral.

Some try to say "this is like overclocking a chip". Answer is "no, it's not. A chip is sold by a manufacturer with a max speed at which it's guaranteed to work. If you want to run it at a higher speed, you can, but you've now lost that guarantee, and you're on your own."

Canon stated it would void the warranty (and I feel this is a legitimate and smart move). Those who have sent their cameras back for servicing without problems/hassles from Canon, well, that was Canon's choice to service them. Again, they could've easily refused servicing these cameras as it was their right to do so.

Some try to say "this is like changing the firmware parameters in a car". Answer is "no, it's not. A better analogy is the breaking of 'eval only' software, or breaking the registration requirements of Microsoft XP".

No... because the examples you listed are acts of pirating software, which has an initial market value. Its act therefore results in the loss of revenue to the software company. As stated before in one of my responses, had Canon sold the firmware separately, therefore its tampering would and subsequent distribution would cause Canon to lose potential revenue, then your analogies would be 100% accurate an pertinent.

Some try to say "but it would be okay if the guy only shipped 'patches'". Answer is "no, it wouldn't, just like it wouldn't be okay if somebody shipped a tiny patch that broke the Microsoft XP registration requirements".

Refer to my response above. Microsoft XP has a set MSRP, a retail value. Any patch and subsequent distribution of the patch/software/code would infringe on the company, costing them lost revenue.

If the "hacker" had implemented the firmware fully from scratch, I'd be fully behind him. But the hack isn't somebody creating value from their own sweat, and then giving it away, he's giving away the result of somebody else's sweat. It's just plain cheesy...

Anyway ... whatever. We all want something for free, even if we have to put our fingers in our ears to avoid hearing that we're being naughty.
-harry

I agree such acts are ethically and morally questionable. My point is in this particular instance, there is a lack of evidence that any laws have been broken. I would expect Canon to alter its programming, and/or create hardware restrictions to prevent the DReb replacement from suffering the same folly.

Although no one can prove that Canon didn't lose money from the existence of the hacked firmware. The same can be said regards to the likelihood of increased sales generated by its existence. The hack has been around for a looOOOOong time. Canon has had plenty of time to think this over. The company has thus far decided to not make a big deal of it. Let Canon handle the issue.

[griff2]

Would you rather that they didn't diagnose and repair cameras that had this error message?

I'd rather that they did diagnose and repair cameras that had this error message, as opposed to simply sending the camera back stating there was nothing wrong with it. One of the reasons I've not sent my camera in for repair is that, because I'm only getting intermittent errors, Canon could quite easily send the camera back to me stating there's nothing wrong with it. I'm going to have to wait 'till it locks up completely, before I can send it in with confidence.

[KO_300D]

:rolleyes: so many rights, wrongs, do's and don'ts.

It's all a matter of personal choice, and while it might be considered technically unethical that I have the hack on my 300D, I'm not bothered as;

It's reversible
I'm out of warranty anyway
my 'modified' 300d is more capable than your 'unmodified' 300d :D

[griff2]

I don't believe that this is an issue on the Rebel/300D. Canon have, quite sensibly, put the code that performs the firmware updates in a region of read-only memory. In other words, the firmware update code does not get overwritten when you do an update. Therefore, even if the update fails half way through, you can still recharge the battery and try again.



From the canon website re: firmware upgrade: Q: While copying the firmware, the word "ERROR" is shown on the display.


A: The firmware updating procedure has failed. If you used battery pack BP-511 or BP-512, please change the power supply equipment to the AC Adapter Kit (Optional) ACK-E2, and try to update the firmware again. If the word "ERROR" still appears on the display after the update, or some problems are found during the update, please contact the Canon Service Center.


The firmware updater is, of course in ROM, but the firmware itself is not, and is overwritten, otherwise every firmware update would take an ever increasing amount of RAM.


There's always an element of risk when updating firmware, whether it be BIOS, or DVD writer or camera.

[MTAtech]

To cut through the mustard, is it the consensus of the group advocating use of the hack?

[Bruce Watson]

To cut through the mustard, is it the consensus of the group advocating use of the hack?

Consensus? Man do you have the wrong group.................

Seriously, I think most of us who have installed the hack have been delighted with it and experienced no problems, only benefits from the extra features it unlocks.

Speaking only for myself, I installed it not long after it came out and then followed through with the updated versions. I will not be going back to the old firmware.

All the legal arguements, the moral questions on intellectual property rights, the "sky is gonna fall if you put that on your camera" predictions are moot.

It works well.

[roanjohn]

WASAI = CANON

Call it conspiracy theory but Wasai is "Iasaw" spelled backwards, which means Canon in Japanese :-p

Ro1

[S230]

Here's my input. I personally stayed with Canon because of the Hack. I was originally thinking of switching from Canon to the Nik*n D70. But the hack had actually helped me stay with Canon. Since, I had already purchased many accessories such as lens and batteries for Canon. I am even planning on getting an additional 20D. So in my opinion, I think that the Hack is a saviour to keep the playing field even with the D70. Remember, the D70 was designed to go against the 300D which is almost a year old which is not fair (Like picking on a child).... and with the Hack, it's like the child on steroids or growth pills... :)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50304

[bigrob]

It is of course entirely possible that Canon let someone know how to hack the firmware, so as the increase sales to those that wanted a DSLR, but couldn't afford the 10D.

[KO_300D]

well if the hack swings some customers more in Canon's direction than Nik*n's, then no wonder they're not suing.

It's probably working in their favour more than against

[saltek]

Hi,

Great forum!

I, too, found it odd that PCWorld would run the hack info, along with others. If you notice, they are now charging $6.99 (US) for the mag, as they have seen a big down turn in advertising because of the Internet. (Great time to subscribe, as it now is a big bargain by comparison.) I think they can pick up a few subscribers if they take a new approach and appeal to the more tech minded among us. I'm sure they have the Canon blessing. As I recall, they were pretty high on the DRebel, and in that way, aid sales. I think there are few who would buy the DRebel, instead of the 10-20D because of the Hack. The wedding photographers would be loathe to use a Rebel (nothing wrong with it, just the professional appeal, among a few other things.) On the other hand, people on the fence-Rebel vs. a "prosumer" digacam or the Nikon D70, might opt for the Rebel with the hack and significant price advantage. Someone had mentioned the D70 factor, and I agree. I think that certainly would aid sales to those fence sitters who are "in the know."

[pradeep1]

As I have said before, smart companies cater to the fringe hacker/mod community mainly because their word-of-mouth and fanaticism help drive sales to the regular adopters. I wouldn't even be surprised if Canon leaked the hack to this Wasia guy...who knows. Why would Canon sue someone who has helped their sales. AMD & Intel (overclockable CPUs), Lego (Mindstorm products), Apple, Microsoft (not enforcing their copyright in developing nations), Robosapien, etc. have latently and openly encouraged hacking of their products and doing other "illegal" activities to their profit.

What would you do if you were Canon?

[tommykjensen]

WASAI = CANON

Call it conspiracy theory but Wasai is "Iasaw" spelled backwards, which means Canon in Japanese :-p

Ro1


Only problem with that theory is that his name actually is WASIA

[Bodog]

Speaking of Wasia, he posted on the 300d hacking site today after a long absence. The post was in Russian and I couldn't make out much other that he was giving the current group advise on which processor they should focus on and that he no longer has a camera.
For what it is worth there is an update to the hack currently circulating. Looks kind of rough still and doesn't do much other than enable some of the functions (RAW, WB) in the "dummy" modes. With warnings about camera lockup. Think I'll pass on this one...

[tommykjensen]

For what it is worth there is an update to the hack currently circulating. Looks kind of rough still and doesn't do much other than enable some of the functions (RAW, WB) in the "dummy" modes. With warnings about camera lockup. Think I'll pass on this one...

I noticed that too. I think it was a dutch group that created the new hack.

[Tom W]

Hi,

Great forum!

I, too, found it odd that PCWorld would run the hack info, along with others. If you notice, they are now charging $6.99 (US) for the mag, as they have seen a big down turn in advertising because of the Internet. (Great time to subscribe, as it now is a big bargain by comparison.) I think they can pick up a few subscribers if they take a new approach and appeal to the more tech minded among us. I'm sure they have the Canon blessing. As I recall, they were pretty high on the DRebel, and in that way, aid sales. I think there are few who would buy the DRebel, instead of the 10-20D because of the Hack. The wedding photographers would be loathe to use a Rebel (nothing wrong with it, just the professional appeal, among a few other things.) On the other hand, people on the fence-Rebel vs. a "prosumer" digacam or the Nikon D70, might opt for the Rebel with the hack and significant price advantage. Someone had mentioned the D70 factor, and I agree. I think that certainly would aid sales to those fence sitters who are "in the know."

I noticed that PC World seems to have taken a new turn in the last issue as well. Overclocking and hacking were never things that were mentioned in the magazine before. Hopefully, they'll keep it up - there's a little techno-geek in all of us. :)

[saltek]

I noticed that PC World seems to have taken a new turn in the last issue as well. Overclocking and hacking were never things that were mentioned in the magazine before. Hopefully, they'll keep it up - there's a little techno-geek in all of us. :)

Exactly. They're kind of trying for both markets now that they need more circulation. Some PC mags and Guitar mags for that matter, have been able to charge more for their mags by focusing on the "informed" market as opposed to the layman. If you look carefully through the latest PCWorld, it seems to be about hacks and "tweaks."

Interesting how things change!

Also, in response to someone else, Canon must be loving it. The hack can only help sales and even maintain brand loyalty knowing Canon won't jump down anyone's throat! If you notice the hack section in this PCWorld, they go out of their way to mention that the Nomad Zen hack, WILL void the warranty. Nothing of the kind with the DRebel.

A little aside: Napster or Virgin digital, and Tunebite, make wonderful companions.

Imagine: 7.99-9.95 a month, a millions songs to choose from and Tunebite!! A facinating way to get your music.