Bambi Brown
Leading Member
We're now going to see loads of "samples" and posts and discussions about how Canon really DID put an exposure fix in the 1.0.5 firmware, but just didn't tell us.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New prediction re: 1.0.5 XTi firmware
- Thread starter Bambi Brown
- Start date
imbsysop
Senior Member
sure ! .. this FW update has a hidden "brain FW update" as well .. first it has a hidden feature to repair people's broken cameras and at the same time it gives them a clue on how to use it .. and all this packed into 4.8x lousy Mb ..
--
if needed, email me at : [email protected]
Horum Omnium Fortissimi Sunt Belgae !
(CanFT-QL)Can400DSonH5CanA520-M3358-DH1758
--
if needed, email me at : [email protected]
Horum Omnium Fortissimi Sunt Belgae !
(CanFT-QL)Can400DSonH5CanA520-M3358-DH1758
kenneth woodruff70458
Well-known member
Or at least a lot of posts about predictions to that effect. Seriously, what's with all the witch hunting around here?
Ribber
Leading Member
Bambi Brown
Leading Member
Easy, there's lots of witches about.
The problem is that the 400D "U" issue has pretty much killed this forum. I spent some time away hoping it would die down and get back to some good topics.
Doug Pardee has chipped in some interesting stuff, like his B&W jpeg, and contrast settings stuff, but I noticed he prefaced one of these posts with some thing like "I don't suppose anyone is interested" or somesuch. Well I am, and I'm sure others are too.
I was even interested when someone posted a question about roses (things must be bad).
I know this is a technical forum really, but I wish it would concentrate on interesting technical matters, rather than harping on about whether Canon are lying about what's in their latest firmware release, and "proving" it by photographing lightbulbs.
What about you, Kenneth? What would you like to see discussed here?
Cheers
Steve
Bambi Brown
Leading Member
Too true, it gets a little depressing to have to steer round all the same narrow pointless discussion repeated when trying to filter through it for something worth reading. But somehow the firmware stuff is amusing.
Is it true (or is it my imagination) that the rate of the nonsense reached a minimum during or at least around the 3 green-box challenges?
Ken
And worryingly addictive
You could be right. I was going to make a joke here, but apparently they are no longer appreciated on this forum.
JerryG1
Senior Member
Used to be that the anti-complainer complainers complained about what the product complainers HAD complained about. Now it's what they WILL complain about.
Doesn't anyone take pictures?
--
JerryG
Doesn't anyone take pictures?
--
JerryG
SteveHageman
Senior Member
--
Glad to have digital cameras....
Glad to have digital cameras....
BrianHuffman
Forum Enthusiast
I wonder though, a fix to help the print button and red-eye for 3 printers???? Doesn't seem like that is much of a reason to release a patch. Hmmmmm ;-)
--
BrianH
--
BrianH
What? I'd like to think the green box challenges help alleviate the nonsense.
Many apologies, but I think you mis-understood my post. I thought your green box idea was probably a spark of genius and I believe it had the effect you (may well have) intended. You are the last person I'd argue with on this topic.
I say again - it seemed to me that the rate of nonsense was LEAST during the challenges, I think.
It made it extremely clear that the statistical probability favoured a model in which very few 400Ds are indeed exhibiting poor metering, beyond the usual production spread that is inevitable (say 1/3 EV rms at most). (Faulty Italian focusing screens, picture styles, 350D based pre-conceptions and a few other random errors aside.)
Ken
mikemikeb
Well-known member
And you hit the nail on the head. I think that top Canon brass take an uncanny level of pride in that print button. They might like it as much as their CMOS sensors.
Attention Canon, re: placing a print button in the 1D Mk. III: WHO WILL USE IT??
kenneth woodruff70458
Well-known member
Whatever folks want to discuss, as long as it's about the cameras—the hardware, the use, the pursuit, the enjoyment, the community, the results, whatever. Sometimes that includes problems. Sometimes this underexposure thing is being reported by people who have been shooting for decades.
Considering the amount of traffic here, do people really think they can keep away frequent questions by passing-through newbies who feel that they have a problem, especially with so many other examples of these questions being asked right here before? If these things weren't discussed, there wouldn't be any solutions (or education for the misinformed, when applicable). The recent thread about eyeglasses affecting the meter was an interesting hypothesis, for example, and is an interesting read if only in an academic sense.
An outright attack just means that the reporter of the problem feels the need to get to the bottom of the perceived issue, and perhaps to feel challenged and more adamant about being "right". In the end, if people don't want these threads to propagate, they shouldn't feed the bears.
Ah, many thanks. I did indeed misread your post. A spark of genius, it was not, but I'd like to think it was a good idea. You're correct that I thought it might highlight the normal operation of most Rebels, XTis especially, in a way that would stand out from all of the exposure threads. There was also a lot of talk about the auto modes just not working well on the Rebels, and I never really agreed with that. So, you are correct in that's one of the effects I hoped it would have.
I am pleased to read that. I agree.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum