Inside the Canon EOS-1D C

[LetTheRightLensIn]

For me the base problem i can see here is not with the people that are purchasing this camera and their wealth.

It's more to do with the fact that canon has priced this camera at the point it has to not hurt sales of their other products like the 1DX and the C100 (both of which retail for around $7k).

If they reduced the price of the 1DC to say $500 more than the 1DX who honestly would buy the 1DX anymore?
Let alone the C100.
So instead they put it up with the C300 and claim that its double the camera than the 1DX and thats why its double the cost.

I don't understand why Canon cant just put 4K into the 1DX, call it the 1DX Mk2 or 1DX "C" or whatever at the same price point as what the 1DX is now and thats the end of that.

They would create a second "DSLR video Revolution" as they like to call it, and the other manufacturers would have to play catch up again.

Oh well greed/profits always win out in the end.

Indeed they could've made a 5D3 perhaps too that would've flow off the shelves in a way that made the 5D2 look like it never sold a copy, instead they are not just one of many and no longer own the very market they had created. It's not the way to become a huge, dominant company. I guess it is the way to be ultra-conservative and slug along just being one in the crowd though and getting some intense profits per copy at low copy sales though.

The only reason they even created the revolution to begin with is because they didn't even have a clue. The second they get a clue they kill it off. I was afraid once we first heard rumors about C cams and C100s it was over.

But who knows maybe going this conservative route gets them more money in the end. Or maybe not. Anyway they have made their decision.

 

[syder]

And changing some flags in the 1dx firmware via ml probably wouldn't be illegal either, Canon doesn't make you sign a contract "no 3rd party firmware allowed" when selling the camera. But as it is, even targeting a whole department of lawyers on a single person might have some impact :-o

actually, when you download any canon firmware update you agree to these terms:
[quote author=Canon U.S.A.]
You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third party to do so.

I hope this announcement will be enough to make people leave us alone about hacking the 1D
[/quote]

There's a big difference between what corporations put in end user license agreements (ie what they wish to happen) and what is actually legal.

For example Apple said much the same thing about all iOS devices in their EULAs - however when they went to the US library of congress to ask to have iOS jailbreaking formally declared to be an illegal act, their case was thrown out as it was decided that once a consumer has purchased a device they are free to install whatever (legally created and obtained) software they wish. That doesn't stop Apple releasing firmware updates which patch the methods by which jailbreaks occur, and Canon could certainly do this, but simply saying it's illegal to install software on devices which own isn't true.

I would imagine that in the US at least this would set a very strong legal precedent should Canon actually decide to go after anyone for writing custom firmware for a 1DX

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

actually, when you download any canon firmware update you agree to these terms:
[quote author=Canon U.S.A.]
You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third party to do so.

I hope this announcement will be enough to make people leave us alone about hacking the 1D
[/quote]

Easy to write, not so easy to enforce.

E.g. John could ask Peter to download the firmware for him. Peter did not ask John to do anything with the firmware, and John did not agree to the terms. John doesn't even have to name John, so Canon would have to prove in court that Peter downloaded the firmware himself.

 

[japhoto]

The price aside, this thing could make an epic long exposure tool if the sensor cooling works also for stills...

 

[dolina]

If Apple Inc cannot bring the jailbreakers to justice what hope of Canon Inc? They have better luck stiffing the grey market imports.

4K video should not cost that much!

 

[NormanBates]

4K video should not cost that much!

And it won't. It's just that it won't be Canon selling the cameras.

 

[max]

http://www.cinevate.com/blog/canon-1d-c-motion-image-photography
Amazing what they can extract from a video! 8MP images... imagine what can be done!
All those almost pics that you would get!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If Apple Inc cannot bring the jailbreakers to justice what hope of Canon Inc? They have better luck stiffing the grey market imports.

4K video should not cost that much!

The real danger, as some have said, is that they could start encrypting firmwares in future bodies and make it 10x more difficult to make ML for say the 5D4 or 7D2 and so. So many believe it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. 1DX/C doesn't get publicly unlocked and Canon doesn't make it a true mess to code for future non-1 series bodies.

 

[Portrait_Moments_Photogra]

they would “bring the might of its legal team” to anyone that attempts to modify at the software level,

DEAR CANON

leave your customers alone - we bought your over priced camera - let us do what we want with it.
besides - it did not cost you anything for ML to do their work.

~ we can sue you too you know - you have no business what we do with our cameras.

 

[Area256]

There's a big difference between what corporations put in end user license agreements (ie what they wish to happen) and what is actually legal.

For example Apple said much the same thing about all iOS devices in their EULAs - however when they went to the US library of congress to ask to have iOS jailbreaking formally declared to be an illegal act, their case was thrown out as it was decided that once a consumer has purchased a device they are free to install whatever (legally created and obtained) software they wish. That doesn't stop Apple releasing firmware updates which patch the methods by which jailbreaks occur, and Canon could certainly do this, but simply saying it's illegal to install software on devices which own isn't true.

I would imagine that in the US at least this would set a very strong legal precedent should Canon actually decide to go after anyone for writing custom firmware for a 1DX

I think if someone unlocked code features in the firmware of the 1DX to let it do 4K, than Canon would have a case - it would be like using software you didn't pay for. If, however, someone writes 3rd party software, like ML, to do 4K video without using hidden Canon code, than they have less of a case in the US (based on the above ruling). Although it's possible that like nVidia's graphics cards, they have some kind of hardware switch that will make it impossible to access the required bits of hardware.

 

[jondave]

If Apple Inc cannot bring the jailbreakers to justice what hope of Canon Inc? They have better luck stiffing the grey market imports.

4K video should not cost that much!

Really? Let's see you learn programming and crack the firmware yourself.

they would “bring the might of its legal team” to anyone that attempts to modify at the software level,

DEAR CANON

leave your customers alone - we bought your over priced camera - let us do what we want with it.
besides - it did not cost you anything for ML to do their work.

~ we can sue you too you know - you have no business what we do with our cameras.

Really, sue Canon? Is that the advice you gave to George Hotz vs. Sony?

Honestly, I don't expect the ML team to break this. It would take too much work to benefit a small few. Plus they know the implications of possibly pissing off Canon. It's not impossible for Canon to lock out ML on ALL cameras, would you honestly want that to happen?

Seriously, some people just have no respect for IP.

 

[Dark Reality]

One of the differences mentioned was a heat sink in the 1dc, so even if ml or someone figured out a way to do 4k video on the 1dx, might it just overheat?

 

[AG]

One of the differences mentioned was a heat sink in the 1dc, so even if ml or someone figured out a way to do 4k video on the 1dx, might it just overheat?

It might, BUT this was why i mentioned before that if Canon has a camera that has a gen 1 heatsink and the same camera with the advanced gen 2 heatsink . Wouldn't it make sense to just put the advanced heatsink on both and save money only having to produce 1?

 

[AG]

If Apple Inc cannot bring the jailbreakers to justice what hope of Canon Inc? They have better luck stiffing the grey market imports.

4K video should not cost that much!

Really? Let's see you learn programming and crack the firmware yourself.

they would “bring the might of its legal team” to anyone that attempts to modify at the software level,

DEAR CANON

leave your customers alone - we bought your over priced camera - let us do what we want with it.
besides - it did not cost you anything for ML to do their work.

~ we can sue you too you know - you have no business what we do with our cameras.

Really, sue Canon? Is that the advice you gave to George Hotz vs. Sony?

Honestly, I don't expect the ML team to break this. It would take too much work to benefit a small few. Plus they know the implications of possibly pissing off Canon. It's not impossible for Canon to lock out ML on ALL cameras, would you honestly want that to happen?

Seriously, some people just have no respect for IP.

Who is to say that the ML team will be the ones that break anything?

What if someone worked out a way to "flash" the 1DC firmware directly onto a 1DX via a 3rd party software plugin of some form.
That way they are not tampering with the firmware at all, they are just loading a legit copy of the firmware onto a similar body. (basically the firmware itself isn't touched so no ability to sue, only the method for loading the firmware onto the camera).

BTW George Hotz modified the firmware of the PS3, so he DID break their EULA, If on the other hand the PS3 was just a PS2 with say new funky controllers and all he did was work out a method of flashing the PS3 firmware onto a PS2 without modifying it at all, so you could play all the PS3 games with the PS2 controllers, that would be a different argument.

 

[coutts]

we REFUSE to modify, or assist in the modification, of any 1D camera.

It would jeopardize the entire project and years of work from many developers (including myself). Not worth the risk.

 

[matt2491]

No worries coutts, someone besides ML will do it.

 

[jondave]

BTW George Hotz modified the firmware of the PS3, so he DID break their EULA, If on the other hand the PS3 was just a PS2 with say new funky controllers and all he did was work out a method of flashing the PS3 firmware onto a PS2 without modifying it at all, so you could play all the PS3 games with the PS2 controllers, that would be a different argument.

So you're a lawyer now? You willing to bet your life savings to pay for the lawyer defending the idiot who'll crack Canon's 1DX firmware?

No worries coutts, someone besides ML will do it.

Ha, easy for you to say, you're not the one getting your hands dirty. I dare you to find someone who will.

What some here don't understand is that this is not about what's legally binding or not. Canon can bring you to court anytime of the day. They don't have to win the case, they just need to waste your time and money defending yourself.

So tell me, why would someone with the expertise to break Canon's 1DX firmware waste his time and effort giving away his work for free to a small number of 1DX users, at the risk of Canon's bloodhounds chewing him up until he's bankrupt?

 

[AG]

BTW George Hotz modified the firmware of the PS3, so he DID break their EULA, If on the other hand the PS3 was just a PS2 with say new funky controllers and all he did was work out a method of flashing the PS3 firmware onto a PS2 without modifying it at all, so you could play all the PS3 games with the PS2 controllers, that would be a different argument.

So you're a lawyer now? You willing to bet your life savings to pay for the lawyer defending the idiot who'll crack Canon's 1DX firmware?

No worries coutts, someone besides ML will do it.

Ha, easy for you to say, you're not the one getting your hands dirty. I dare you to find someone who will.

What some here don't understand is that this is not about what legally binding or not. Canon can bring you to court anytime of the day. They don't have to win the case, they just need to waste your time and money defending yourself.

So tell me, why would someone with the expertise to break Canon's 1DX firmware waste his time and effort giving away his work for free to a small number of 1DX users, at the risk of Canon's bloodhounds chew him up until he's bankrupt?

Ok firstly dude, relax. Your taking this way too personally.

Secondly if the end user is NOT modifying the firmware itself but instead has found a way of tricking the installer into loading the 1DC firmware onto a 1DX. How is that modifying the firmware? Its no different to people loading updates to their Android phones that are not standard or the old Modem firmware update hacks of years past.

The sky isn't falling.

 

[jondave]

Secondly if the end user is NOT modifying the firmware itself but instead has found a way of tricking the installer into loading the 1DC firmware onto a 1DX. How is that modifying the firmware? Its no different to people loading updates to their Android phones that are not standard or the old Modem firmware update hacks of years past.

I'm pretty sure someone can do this. The question is if that someone has the balls to publish it for others to use.

You just don't get it do you? EULA's are not black and white, it's mostly gray. A big gray pool where high-priced lawyers swim in.

 

[Speediakal]

I can't wait for someone to try and get 4K video on the 1D X and have it burn up in a torrent of fire. Then everyone will realize that heatsinks are important and there's a reason for the price difference.

Also, the 1D C is in a niche market, there is no other camera comparable to it.

BMCC? Only 2K.
RED? Fully loaded, costs $25K+ and is huge.
JVC and Sonys new 4K camera? No interchangeable lenses.


Are half the people in here that are whining about this camera even looking to use 4K video in the near future? You realize most people rent?