So again it’s another support on how much they hate us to tinker with our camera. Then the open source project responded saying they are not interested. But later on as there’s rumors that the ID C cinematic camera ($10,000+ specialized in cine) is not much different than the then current 1D mode (may be 1D X, can’t remember) and it may be possible to hack it and install the 1D C firmware on the 1D camera (which is a relative bargain around $6000 or may be more.) Those rumors call out the open source project for help, and Canon for the first time spoke about the subject and signal that they will sue if anyone tamper with their flagship camera. Sony may have killed the app capability due to this in recent models (or may be they only killed it because the store isn’t profitable.) If true that proves your point that they hate people tinkering it.Ĭanon always has been silent about the custom softwares running on their cameras including the famous 5D Mark II for raw videos. Others includes firmware on Panasonic cameras, and then apps on Sony cameras. Famous examples are 2 projects on Canon compact and DSLR lines. (Edit: but each company has their own secret sauce here.)Īs a digression, there are open source projects for running softwares or at least custom firmware in cameras. The later might not be true, may be it is specification available but not open.Īnd practically any mount has been reversed engineered in their electronic protocols. In terms of mount spec, I think Four Third and the successor Micro Four Third is open specification, then the Sony E mount later (not at launch time) open the specification. Some companies solve this by throwing something unsupported/unofficial over the wall, others (or their lawyers) decide the whole thing isn't worth the hassle. The prosumer space is funny for stuff like this, as people are often quite capable but not really willing to pay enough to justify the cost of real support. So I imagine if they have looked at it, they've balanced that against the "brand building" as you put it, and aren't sure it's a net win. So it would be a real project, and it would cost them enough that (using your rough numbers) they'd need to sell probably a few thousand support contracts a year to justify doing it properly (supporting multiple cameras, customer support, testing etc.). Hell they may already not be making next to nothing on these bodies. your numbers) on something that might help a fraction of install base. I'm pretty confident their margins aren't fat enough they'd be happy considering eating 1-2% (i.e. Engineers usually underestimate how much this really is. > Which, although might end up being quite a non trivial amount, i What could the SDK do to the camera so that it voids the warranty? (On the other hand, given the quality of camera brand produced software, I can imagine the quality of the code that went into it.) :) I am currently thinking on buying a FujiFilm X-T4, and I was pleased to see there is a SDK, but now, finding out that using the SDK is practically forbidden (until the warranty ends), it makes me stop and think about my decision. On the other side, if one can implement in software what the producer doesn't want to implement in firmware, they might miss some future upgrade sales. It would make their cameras much more flexible and useful, thus perhaps gaining some users that currently use smartphones where it seems there is greater control over and integration with the cameras. I am an amateur photographer, and I can't understand why the major camera brands (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc.) aren't open at least to the concept of SDK's to control their cameras (let alone opening the lens mount specifications).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |