August 29, 2014, 10:35:52 PM

Author Topic: Magic Lantern on the 5D Mark III  (Read 20070 times)

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4411
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Magic Lantern on the 5D Mark III
« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2012, 04:40:08 AM »
Why do you think Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Samyang were able to make those 3rd party lenses?

Ml is indeed a little bit like 3rd party lens manufacturers - they essentially help Canon because if they weren't here Canon would sell *less* cameras, it would be like Apple or MS only allowing their own applications. Canon just wants to be ahead of them to be able to put a premium on its own (L) lenses, and Canon is sure to introduce little annoyances now and then to make using 3rd party gear a bit of a hassle.

But they could of course completely block non-Canon equipment if they'd loose money - that's the point. Hacking the 1dc is such a case, they could easily change/encrypt their firmware so ml would not run on newer camera bodies - is a hacked 1dx worth having no ml on the 6d? And Canon would/could even change the 1dx production right now to further prevent any hacks - they can, because unlike rooting ios/android no user software runs on Canon os that could exploit security holes. Ml just conveniently uses a Canon mechanism to run, that could be taken away anytime with the next firmware update.

Next to that, Canon could sue the devs and refuse warranty on any camera running ml - that would diminish the userbase and bleed the project dry except for some devs profiting from hacking the first batch of 1dx.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Magic Lantern on the 5D Mark III
« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2012, 04:40:08 AM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3514
    • View Profile
Re: Magic Lantern on the 5D Mark III
« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2012, 04:40:47 AM »
canon won't have a problem with ML.

Canon *will* have a problem with ml if ml isn't helping their sales as a unannounced big feature but makes people not buy the 1dc. I gather Canon will make this position clear one way or another, and I hope the main ml devs will make it as clear that they do not want to cause Canon losses or profit from hacking the 1dx.

Isn't it that ML is just running beside Canon's software?  It's not modifying the code or any hardware.  Right?  It's just like some software running inside your OS.  E.g., if I make a program that runs in Windows and uses the intrinsic OS commands like showing the clock time, even hacking into memory management, does that make my program illegal?  For me 1DX can be looked at as platform.  Why do you think Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Samyang were able to make those 3rd party lenses?  They even had to reverse engineer the way the lens is communicating with the body.  Isn't this a higher form of hacking into the system?

If I read it right, another reason why Canon is differentiating 1Dx and 1Dc is that tax laws in some countries are different for stills and movie and even the size of the output for movie cameras.  Of course you can't discount the fact that they will earn more through introducing a different software for the same hardware.  That's why I'm looking at ML like an open-source 3rd party software something like JAVA.  :)

not illegal but it doesn't mean they'd like it and they could do stuff to make ML type things harder to pull off perhaps if a quick ML made the 1DC utterly pointless for anyone to buy

(again, unless they noticed that giving the 1DX more value made it sell so well as to make the 1dc look like a dumb idea even with insane margin per copy, and who knows, maybe it would)

tax laws hardly make a $6000 difference, that;s got to be just pure garbage, and do 4k people need to shoot over the time limit more than 2k shooters? maybe less on avg, if anything



canon rumors FORUM

Re: Magic Lantern on the 5D Mark III
« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2012, 04:40:47 AM »