Canon 1DC is IDENTICAL to 1DX other than firmware

[DB]

...and yet another way of looking at it is, if ML crack the 1DX and enable 4K video recording, Canon may then be faced with the choice of either (a) reducing the price of the 1DC to $6995, or (b) raising the price of the 1DX to $12,995

[bvukich]

If it makes you feel any better... think of it as getting a 1DC with a couple of disabled features for half price.

[K-amps]

We all have our opinions; We have all ranted, ... Good for all of us!

[Marsu42]

It's Canon, you know it!!

In Canon's defense, for once: For computer software (and the firmware is) it's absolutely normal to charge thousands of $$$ to enable additional features - esp. if it's expert software like CAD or 1dc video firmware. Even if the code would be in the firmware already but disabled doesn't mean everybody is free to use it, the manufacturer has to calculate a business model if he plans to ship different versions.

...and yet another way of looking at it is, if ML crack the 1DX and enable 4K video recording

ML never hacked or cracked anything (!!!), they only use firmware hooks Canon freely exposes though they are not documented. PLEASE don't spread wrong rumors, ml is not about torpedoing Canon's business model or camera lineup.

[DB]

It's Canon, you know it!!

In Canon's defense, for once: For computer software (and the firmware is) it's absolutely normal to charge thousands of $$$ to enable additional features - esp. if it's expert software like CAD or 1dc video firmware. Even if the code would be in the firmware already but disabled doesn't mean everybody is free to use it, the manufacturer has to calculate a business model if he plans to ship different versions.

...and yet another way of looking at it is, if ML crack the 1DX and enable 4K video recording

ML never hacked or cracked anything (!!!), they only use firmware hooks Canon freely exposes though they are not documented. PLEASE don't spread wrong rumors, ml is not about torpedoing Canon's business model or camera lineup.

If Canon freely exposes, then why do Canon Europe say using ML will invalidate your Warranty?

[DB]

Apple Inc. uses a 'walled-garden' (software term) for their App Store, but they allow developers to develop add-ons for their iPhone/iPod/iPad etc. So why don't Canon just license ML and split the firmware fee (royalty sharing like Apple who take 30%).

[Marsu42]

If Canon freely exposes, then why do Canon Europe say using ML will invalidate your Warranty?

Source? From everything I've ever read Canon acknowledges users' rights to use firmware addons as long as they don't fry their cameras.

Concerning the hooks: Canon "exposes" them for internal debugging & development, ml simply uses them w/o explicit permission.

[DB]

My canon authorized dealer in Dublin when I asked this week about my 7D (which is <1 year old), plus in the ML manual, the following:

"Canon support maintains that any upgrades to the software of the camera not performed by an authorized Canon Repair Facility or installed as directed by Canon, would void the warranty. Thus you should consider it likely that damage occuring to your camera while using Magic Lantern software would not be covered under your Warranty, should Canon challenge the Warranty on that basis. Whether or not their position would hold up legally, has not been tested."

Basically, you use ML at your own risk. I believe most Canon users already knew this to be the case.

[bbasiaga]

Any software development types here that can give the masses an idea of how different the code would have to be to handle the 4K video stream?  It seems like the general thought is that its easy/free to 'turn on' this feature, but I'm guessing there is more to it than that.

-Brian

[Marsu42]

"Canon support maintains that any upgrades to the software of the camera not performed by an authorized Canon Repair Facility or installed as directed by Canon, would void the warranty. Thus you should consider it likely that damage occuring to your camera while using Magic Lantern software would not be covered under your Warranty, should Canon challenge the Warranty on that basis. Whether or not their position would hold up legally, has not been tested."

This special case might not have been legally tested, but with a reason - Canon would most likely loose. The whole "unscrew anything and you void your warranty" fud is void at least in the EU, it has been established over and over that you don't void a warranty by using a product. And ml just installs just one flag in the firmware, that's it. Ok, frying your cpu with an alpha ml version might be a warranty problem - but *any* damage occurring while ml is installed is bs.

[Albi86]

"Canon support maintains that any upgrades to the software of the camera not performed by an authorized Canon Repair Facility or installed as directed by Canon, would void the warranty. Thus you should consider it likely that damage occuring to your camera while using Magic Lantern software would not be covered under your Warranty, should Canon challenge the Warranty on that basis. Whether or not their position would hold up legally, has not been tested."

This special case might not have been legally tested, but with a reason - Canon would most likely loose. The whole "unscrew anything and you void your warranty" fud is void at least in the EU, it has been established over and over that you don't void a warranty by using a product. And ml just installs just one flag in the firmware, that's it. Ok, frying your cpu with an alpha ml version might be a warranty problem - but *any* damage occurring while ml is installed is bs.

The problem is: how you prove that the damage wasn't caused by ML, if Canon says so?

[Marsu42]

The problem is: how you prove that the damage wasn't caused by ML, if Canon says so?

That's of course the general warranty problem I cannot help with. But imho Canon is unlikely to say to because I've never heard they've done it in the past, and next to that they have to discover that you were using ml in the first place - as long as your camera is in a working state you can simply uninstall the bootflag w/o trace.

[peederj]

Any software development types here that can give the masses an idea of how different the code would have to be to handle the 4K video stream?  It seems like the general thought is that its easy/free to 'turn on' this feature, but I'm guessing there is more to it than that.

-Brian

It may in fact involve doing _less_ rather than more in the pipeline. If they use the native resolution of the sensor for their 4K (which they do, it's simply cropped to native res) you won't have to do a downsampling step. The rest of your processing can be the same pipeline as stills as long as the processors can handle the throughput without power or heat problems. The codec at the end will have more data to process, but the codecs can handle that and are industry standards. In both cases, the 1DC proves that the stock 1DX hardware is capable of the feat.

If that is the case, then the 1DX is exactly a _crippled_ version of the 1DC: resolution-destroying code is inserted into the firmware of the 1DX that is left out of the 1DC. This might not be terribly hard to hack; I can think of two approaches off hand instantly.

[Rat]

The problem is: how you prove that the damage wasn't caused by ML, if Canon says so?

If you f**k around with third party software, I don't think you're entitled to ask that question if all goes belly-up.

It's all been checked for you. You want to have no warranty issues, you know what the price is. But then this'll probably be all about the price not being fair.

_{And then to think I'm not even remotely capitalist...}

[K-amps]

The problem is: how you prove that the damage wasn't caused by ML, if Canon says so?

If you f**k around with third party software, I don't think you're entitled to ask that question if all goes belly-up.

It's all been checked for you. You want to have no warranty issues, you know what the price is. But then this'll probably be all about the price not being fair.

_{And then to think I'm not even remotely capitalist...}

Just make sure you removed your ML CF card before tossing the body over to Canon