D100 - no user upgrade for a reason!

Rich Gibson · Oct 9, 2002

I don't see much "enlightened" discussion lately...just a lot of male egos trying to win arguing points rather than admit they acted rashly and ...gasp...might be wrong. Definitely an outbreak of testoserone poisoning.

You can tell by the use of superlatives, "blows away" and techno-specification babble, and the running dissection of posts laced with obviously "brilliant" retorts.

Sheesh! Let's take some pictures please.

)

SoftD100 said:
but i agree , people should take a chill pill.

everyone is looking for 2.0 to fix issues that are a result of
people not being able to use their cameras

snowwrestler · Oct 9, 2002

If I'm Nikon, there is no way I would allow users to self-install a firmware update on the D100, especially after reading this site. Consider these two threads:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=3522156

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=3531047

This is hacking, plain and simple. Users who consider themselves qualified to muck around in the software will do so if given the opportunity. And when things go wrong, guess who gets the camera under warranty, with a note saying "I don't know what happened"? Nikon.

For years camera consumers bought film cameras with no expectation of software updates, despite the fact that cameras have been run by software for at least a decade. You simply understood that at some point the next model would come out with improved technology, and your camera would no longer be tops. If you wanted to "user upgrade" it cost money--for a new camera.

Now Nikon offers software updates for free, and look at the abuse they receive! The Nikon way has always been slow and steady reliability. Since when have they been first to market with a technology? Even the D1 was not revolutionary in any way but price. When their entire brand identity is unflinching reliability, I cannot blame them for keeping customer hands off their software--especially when so many of those customers are demonstrably eager to hack their cameras.

I have to laugh when I read this site. First users slam Nikon for not rushing a new DSLR out the door at Photokina. Then they slam Nikon for releasing firmware updates--which are taken as a sign that the D100 was released before it should have been! Which is it? Do we want early cameras that may or may not function properly (a la Canon), or do we want cameras that come later but are rock solid (as Nikon has usually operated).

I totally agree that Nikon has screwed this up royally. But I take an opposite view--they should never have offered firmware updates at all. If they are going to do it, it should be user-installable. But it must be done in a way that will be 100% reliable, and not allow any mucking around (no matter how good a programmer the customer thinks he is). I believe that this is currently impossible.

I think the far better option would have been to simply take all the tech advances that would go into a firmware update, and roll them into the next camera. This is the way it has been handled in film cameras (which are controlled by software) since the dawn of commercial photographic equipment. There is no right to a firmware update, and it seems to be taken as a sign of weakness by many. If Nikon were smart they would never offer another firmware update again.

psd250 · Oct 9, 2002

Well none of this woudl have happened if Nikon would have had teh forsight to implement a system or some type of strategy taht woudl deal with this situation. No one is realy complaining here for the sake of complaining, they just want to have their cameras in their hand and not in the shop, they love their Nikon and this passion for it obviously show when you take their cameras away...thats all folks.

Because as soon as the Nikon user has his camera back in his hands, he becomes peacful.

Gabriele Sartori · Oct 9, 2002

Phil Askey said:
Sorry but this is totally incorrect. While I don't know for sure
that any re-calibration is carried out on the D100 I do know that
other upgrades which have required return to service center for
other camera models have indeed included running special
re-calibration applications on the camera.

Possible. As I said is totally asinine (I'm not referring to you, I'm referring to the people that did a design like that). If Nikon has bad designer I don't want to fly my camera 2000 miles and have UPS people "recalibrating" it.

Come on, Nikon would ask to send cameras to real service centers if there recalibration involved. Have I to be so specific with you?

Member said:
--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Gabriele Sartori · Oct 9, 2002

Michael Hung said:
I can respond but I have long refused to reply to ignorant people
especially ignorant people in my own profession. You are not the
only engineer in this forum and no one in this forum knows what
exactly is changed in the firmware other than those 4 things they
posted. I would not question the ability of Nikon engineers and
their decision unless I know all the facts.

I never called you an ignorant Mr. Hung. You don't know all the facts about me. May be you want to do some search. At the mean time I've the right to an opinion after 25 years of career in the hight tech industry.

You don't do a good service to yourself bashing people without providing real reason. Take a walk.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

puma119328 · Oct 9, 2002

Good point Stan, and I agreed with you. I used to work in computer services and had seen many poeple brought in dead PCs when trying to upgrade the BIOS. Well, I have my D100 for a couple months now and I enjoy it verymuch, like you, I don't see the need to upgrade mine yet... Still in the learning curve though...

puma

Stan Disbrow said:
The reason appears to be pretty simple. Kodak cameras have two
flash parts, or one larger part that's segmented in halves. I
strongly suspect that the Nikon cameras have only one.

All firmware in everything electronics, from computers to cell
phones, use flash memory these days. The way these parts work is
such that they need to be erased, then written to, all at once. If
the data transfer should be interrupted, then the device will be
rendered inoperable.

I can tell you that this is the reason we don't support user flash
upgrades for the devices we make around here. If it gets messed up,
the unit is dead and that means it has to go back to the service
shop to be straightened out. Most times, it means that the part
needs to be yanked off the board and replaced.

Ever notice that computers tend to use dual parts, so that one is
still useable in the event that the other gets hosed up during a
reflash? Maybe it's too subtle to notice unless you've had a load
mess up and suddenly found yourself coming back up with a BIOS
revision that is two levels back.

Kodak's cameras work in the same way. At least both my 620x and 660
do. They do this for two reasons. One is the risk of a bad flash
write. The other is if the new firmware should have a bug, it'll
switch to the one before. I've seen both my cameras do this should
they hang up.

The Kodak units are larger than the Nikon ones, so it may well be
that Nikon just didn't have the space to use dual flash parts in
their design. It might be that they wanted to save on the cost of
the second part. It may be that they just like the idea of having
it already in a repair center should things go wrong.

Heck, it may be that they just don't trust end users to actually do
the upgrade right in the first place. I know that I don't trust
end users to properly reflash the firmware in the products I design!

Regardless of the reason that Nikon has decided that the units must
go back for a reflash, that's what must happen. They aren't going
to change their minds about this no matter how many posts there
might be on the subject.

That leaves all of us to simply decide when, or even if, we will
send out cameras in for the update. Personally, I'm not sending my
D1H in for it any time soon. I don't see the need. The camera is
working fine as it is.

Stan

Phil Askey said:

Guys,

CHILL OUT!

There are many digital cameras (consumer and D-SLR) which can't be
flashed by the user simply because of the type of EEPROM chip they
use to hold the firmware. Sony digital cameras for example can't
be flashed by the user and have to be taken to a service center.

Nikon are offering the upgrade for free, all you have to do is get
the camera to the service center.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Click to expand...

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
More info and list of gear is in my Posters' Profile.

Gabriele Sartori · Oct 9, 2002

Jason VIllafranca said:
and in my opinion, we should be even more careful about what we say
about the owner of this site!... Phil has a site to run and
sponsors to keep... I think everybody is going overboard on the
simple fact that we have to send our $2000.00 cameras on a little
trip to become better...

If we are not careful then we are in danger of having Nikon pull
the plug on us here at DPReview!... Phil gets to review and preview
Nikon products regularly because of the sites big audience - But if
you were Nikon and you heard that the people at DPReview were
plotting to raise a lawsuit against your company after you tried to
do them a favor what would you do?.... I would CUT THEM OFF!!!...
fortunately most of us here are not falling for the "lawsuit" idea
but unfortunately too many of us do not realize that the Nikon
Upgrade is a favor to us!...

Jason, excuse me. I often agreed with your posts, but here I totally disagree. Upgrade a favor? Upgrade is due! ANd it is due without generating troubles. They should post it on the web period!

They systematically do this in order to micromanage everything, they don't care about the customers. It is people reasoning like you that is allowing them to keep going with the situation. Is people like me that is vocal and make a difference.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Joseph S Wisniewski · Oct 9, 2002

snowwrestler said:
If I'm Nikon, there is no way I would allow users to self-install a
firmware update on the D100, especially after reading this site.
Consider these two threads:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=3522156
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=3531047

This is hacking, plain and simple.

Actually, it's not, but I ran past the 6000 character limit, so had to put that into another post.

snowwrestler said:
Users who consider themselves
qualified to muck around in the software will do so if given the
opportunity. And when things go wrong, guess who gets the camera
under warranty, with a note saying "I don't know what happened"?
Nikon.

Then they shouldn't be offering downloadable updates to CoolPix users. Much larger user pool, much less professional, and in the lowest profit margin segment of the market.

And guess who can say "I know what's wrong, you flashed bogus firmware. you'll be charged for an out of warranty repair"?

Nikon.

snowwrestler said:
For years camera consumers bought film cameras with no expectation
of software updates, despite the fact that cameras have been run by
software for at least a decade. You simply understood that at some
point the next model would come out with improved technology,

The "improved technology" was never "just software". It's been better AF modules, more and better exposure sensors, faster AF motors, better lenses...

Well, with the exception of the Nikon 8008s...

snowwrestler said:
and
your camera would no longer be tops. If you wanted to "user
upgrade" it cost money--for a new camera.

snowwrestler said:
Now Nikon offers software updates for free, and look at the abuse
they receive!

I believe your definition of "free" is lacking. Camera out of service (costing a professional money), paid for shipping and insurance, and subjected to unnecessary risks.

snowwrestler said:
The Nikon way has always been slow and steady
reliability.

Apparently, you have never used a Series E lens. Or "always" goes back less than 15 years, for you.

snowwrestler said:
Since when have they been first to market with a
technology?

I had a Nikon FA, the first SLR with multiple pattern metering, and the first that could do either aperture or shutter prefered autoexposure.

The F3AF was the worlds first autofocus SLR in 1983 (with electric focus lenses years before Canon).

Nikon has always been speed demons: the first SLR with 1/4000 sec shutter. Nikon's first motor drive was the fastest in the world, and every F had a motor drive coupling.

First color exposure meter.

snowwrestler said:
When their entire brand identity is unflinching
reliability,

Their "entire" brand identity includes millions of consumer cameras with "nice", "fun", or "cool" in their names.

snowwrestler said:
firmware updates--which are taken as a sign
that the D100 was released before it should have been! Which is
it? Do we want early cameras that may or may not function properly
(a la Canon),

Or Nikon F3AF? Or Nikon CP950 (remember the lockup problem)? Or the 43-86mm zoom? The N4004?

Nikon has gotten themselves laughed at plenty of times.

snowwrestler said:
or do we want cameras that come later but are rock
solid (as Nikon has usually operated).

I totally agree that Nikon has screwed this up royally. But I take
an opposite view--they should never have offered firmware updates
at all. If they are going to do it, it should be user-installable.
But it must be done in a way that will be 100% reliable,

Nothing can ever be 100% reliable. Every time a mortal engineer designs a better "foolproof" system, God simply upgrades the fools.

snowwrestler said:
and not
allow any mucking around (no matter how good a programmer the
customer thinks he is).

I really doubt it would be healthy for the industry to try. I'll go into detail in the next post.

snowwrestler said:
I believe that this is currently
impossible.

Again, it's not a 100% problem. It's a problem of balance. At what point does the cost of protecting something exceed the financial damages from having it leak out.

snowwrestler said:
I think the far better option would have been to simply take all
the tech advances that would go into a firmware update, and roll
them into the next camera.

Maybe. The Nikon D100 has only been availiable in satisfactory quantities for about 4 weeks now (although its been around, in sort supply, for 3 months). How soon could Nikon introduce the "next camera" without losing the faith and support of dealers, pro users, and "average" customers? Should D100 be allowed a full year of shelf life? But then you'd have Windows XP users not buying Nikon cameras, and Mac users not buying Nikon Capture 3, two key points addressed by the 2.0 revision.

snowwrestler said:
This is the way it has been handled in
film cameras (which are controlled by software) since the dawn of
commercial photographic equipment.

Again, how often can you put out a new film camera? Nikon took heavy fire from their dealers when they updated N90 into N90s (or N90x) after the N90 had been on the shelves for 18 months. Too much "obsolete" inventory stuck on their shelves. And N90 only cost 1/2 what D100 cost, 1/4 what D1x cost.

snowwrestler said:
There is no right to a firmware
update,

Actually, there is, in most countries. In the US it's called an "implied warranty of merchantability". The 1.01 update, for example, fixed a documented feature that didn't work. A free update (even with free shipping) was certainly cheaper for Nikon then buying back every camera that people squaked about.

snowwrestler said:
and it seems to be taken as a sign of weakness by many. If
Nikon were smart they would never offer another firmware update
again.

If they were smart, they would make it bullet proof and user installable.

Ciao!

Joe

Gabriele Sartori · Oct 9, 2002

Andrew Snow said:
Andrew Snow said:

Too bad I'm locked in with all these lenses otherwise it would be
bye, bye, Nikon.

Click to expand...

To bad for us too, so we now have to put up with your incessant
whining on this topic!

Every part of the DSLR represents a compromise in one way or
another - this is just another one. For what will probably be the
only upgrade in the life of the camera, does it really matter? And
you can't say you didn't know it wouldn't be user-upgradeable when
you bought it, at any rate.

You don't get it, fine, I don't have to convince you. My name is stated very clearly, unless you have morbid curiosity, just skip me, it is so simple.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Joseph S Wisniewski · Oct 9, 2002

snowwrestler said:
Consider these two threads:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=3522156
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=3531047

This is hacking, plain and simple. Users who consider themselves
qualified to muck around in the software will do so if given the
opportunity.
I cannot blame them for keeping customer hands off
their software--especially when so many of those customers are
demonstrably eager to hack their cameras.
If they are going to do it, it should be user-installable.
But it must be done in a way that will be 100% reliable, and not
allow any mucking around (no matter how good a programmer the
customer thinks he is). I believe that this is currently
impossible.

I agree, it's pretty much impossible to stop reverse engineering. It's a problem of balance. At what point does the cost of protecting something exceed the financial damages from having it leak out.

the person doing the reverse engineering may not just be a customer. They may be a producer of aftermarket products. They may be small (like Coocoon creations who reverse engineered the Nikon serial links on F4, F5, N90, and F100, or Mike Chaney who reversed the NEF format to make Qimage print better, or me and my chips to allow bellows lenses to meter) or they may be big like the lens companies Sigma, Tokina, or Tamron, or the flash companies like Metz and Sunpack.

They may be scientists, like some friends of mine in Ann Arbor who reverse engineered the Canon EF mount, so they could control the focusing of 16 Canon lenses in an array telescope.

They may have a full lab, logic analyzers, protocol analyzers, optical benches. I doubt it will be 100% possible to stop such people.

I doubt it should be attempted. Look at the where you'd be, without those people, big and small, who dared to reverse engineer these cameras (or "hack", as you so crudley put it).

1) No Tokina, Sigma, Tamron, Vivitar aftermarket lenses. Only Nikon and Canon, and without the competition their high prices would be even higher.

2) Your lenses wouldn't be as versatile. Nikon & Canon improved their lens technology as much to keep up with the "hacker" aftermarket as to keep with each other. Nikon designers founded Tokina, because they believed zooms are the future. Sigma pushes the envelope into areas like the 50-500 zoom.

3) No Sunpak open bulb flash that works with Nikon or Canon TTL. No Metz with twice the guide number of the biggest Nikon. No Quantum turbo battery (they had to "reverse engineer" the propriatary high voltage connecter of Canon, Nikon, Braun, Metz, etc. flashes)

4) No "P" nikkor 45mm 2.8. The "hacker" Rolland Elliot proved to Nikon that there was a market for such.

5) No NC3.5 with its 10MP mode for D1x, to keep up if the "hacker" who wrote Bibble.

6) No FAT file system, Nikon needed their own "hackers" to reverse engineer it. A lab (or drugstore photo printing kiosk) would need separate programs to read the propriatary file formats of Nikon, Canon, olympus, Toshiba, Kodak, Fuji, etc. Cf cards.

7) No Kenko extension tubes and teleconverters that preserve metering (and even AF) on Nikon lenses. Some nice hacking that was.

8) Nikon capture would still be $300, instead of $99, if it didn't have to compete with Bibble. But it would have less features for the higher price.

9) No Silverfast or Vuescan. You'd always have to scan negatives and slides using propriatary software. The stuff that comes with Nikon is barely usable. What came with my Minolta was pure junk.

10) No Apple Macintosh. That company was started by a couple of hackers, who built "blue boxes" to cheat the phone company, on the same workbench they built the first Apple computer. And no Microsoft Windows to compete with the Mac.

So take a moment to thank the "hackers", from the bottom of your heart, that you're paying twice the money for much more primitive lenses, on a digicam you can't use without outrageously expensive software that barely runs, that you have to run on a PC, from the DOS command line.

Ciao!

Joe

Terry C. · Oct 9, 2002

I think if Nikon just put out some official technical reasoning why they cannot have a user-serviceable firmware upgrade, like the example that Phil gave, then that might help.

Just my thoughts...

--
Terry C.

snowwrestler · Oct 9, 2002

Pulling a pre-release firmware update out of camera to e-mail to thousands of users across the world to self-install, is hacking.

I'm not saying that hacking is evil, I'm saying that from Nikon's perspective it is, because errors of any kind will result in a camera that has to be sent back for repair. I believe that is why they are reluctant to hand the reigns over the users. They want 100% reliability.

Valliesto Bailey · Oct 9, 2002

herbet said:
I have only positive things to say about Nikon.

That is very strange to me. I am a fan of many companies, but I do have issues with each one. Every company I have dealt with has at one time or another done something stupid that has upset myself or other users.

I would be surprised to find a company that I could only say positive things about. I have used Nikon and know people who use Nikon now, and I can tell you that Nikon is far from perfect, but better than most.

Valliesto
'A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is brave five
minutes longer.'

R.W. Emerson

Valliesto Bailey · Oct 9, 2002

snowwrestler said:
Pulling a pre-release firmware update out of camera to e-mail to
thousands of users across the world to self-install, is hacking.

I'm not saying that hacking is evil, I'm saying that from Nikon's
perspective it is, because errors of any kind will result in a
camera that has to be sent back for repair. I believe that is why
they are reluctant to hand the reigns over the users. They want
100% reliability.

Is 100% reliability worth the ill will that Nikon has generated? It seems to me that there are many users that are pretty upset by this action by Nikon. A firmware update is a pretty simple thing, just look at past messages in the Canon forum to see that there are pretty much zero errors when user update their firmware.

It seems to me to be a controll issue for Nikon. If that is true it is a sad comment on Nikon's corp. mentality.
--
Valliesto
'A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is brave five
minutes longer.'

R.W. Emerson

NNS · Oct 9, 2002

As a new DSLR owner, and a Nikon Film SLR owner, I too wish Nikon would just tell us what if any upgrade is being done to our D100's as far as tweeking the picture quality output.

I am a very forgiving man and usually go along with the flow when someone tells me why and gives me solid reasons etc. I have a fairly difficult time boxing up my D100 to send off to Nikon for an upgrade that I'm not sure will do any good or not. I guess I along with lots of others will just have to wait and see.

Terry C. said:
I think if Nikon just put out some official technical reasoning why
they cannot have a user-serviceable firmware upgrade, like the
example that Phil gave, then that might help.

Just my thoughts...

--
Terry C.

Gabriele Sartori · Oct 9, 2002

Terry C. said:
I think if Nikon just put out some official technical reasoning why
they cannot have a user-serviceable firmware upgrade, like the
example that Phil gave, then that might help.

I agree with you. It would pacify even me. However I think that no reason is available to them.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Joe Desbonnet · Oct 9, 2002

Well, I emailed a very polite message to Nikon asking if an engineer could give us a concise technical explanation why the upgrade cannot be done by the user. The auto repy promised a reply within 14 days .... so I look forward to that.

It's quite possible knowing the way some companies work that there are very fustrated engineers at Nikon reading this, who would like to share with us the simple facts of the situation but are not allowed to.... in this era of dog sue dog everything that comes from the company needs to be screened by the markeeteers and lawyers.

Joe.

NNS said:
I am a very forgiving man and usually go along with the flow when
someone tells me why and gives me solid reasons etc. I have a
fairly difficult time boxing up my D100 to send off to Nikon for an
upgrade that I'm not sure will do any good or not. I guess I along
with lots of others will just have to wait and see.

Terry C. said:

I think if Nikon just put out some official technical reasoning why
they cannot have a user-serviceable firmware upgrade, like the
example that Phil gave, then that might help.

Just my thoughts...

--
Terry C.

Click to expand...

herbet50979 · Oct 9, 2002

Gabriele Sartori said:
However I think that no
reason is available to them.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Gabriele Sartori · Oct 9, 2002

Stan Disbrow said:
Hi,

The reason appears to be pretty simple. Kodak cameras have two
flash parts, or one larger part that's segmented in halves. I
strongly suspect that the Nikon cameras have only one.

Just one example but I can send you data books:
http://www.intel.com/design/flcomp/prodbref/298256.htm
"4-Mb partitions allow for changing code and data requirements"

Intel is the biggest single producer of flash in the world. AMD-Fujitsu (they share the markets with the same products done jointly) are the other one. Go on the Intel web site or AMD web site and you will see the features.

Beside segmentation, you can also have a single segment where you store the application and the calibration information. In your C language (or almost any other language) source code you just define an area with absolute addresses where you keep permanent, device specific data. This is the norm in anything built these days. Tools, instrument they all have calibration and nobody is so crazy to recalibrate ll of them.

When you write the segment your routine has to put these data in a temporary ram (like the buffer) until the process is finished.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Raul · Oct 9, 2002

Phil Askey said:
Guys,

CHILL OUT!

There are many digital cameras (consumer and D-SLR) which can't be
flashed by the user simply because of the type of EEPROM chip they
use to hold the firmware. Sony digital cameras for example can't
be flashed by the user and have to be taken to a service center.

Nikon are offering the upgrade for free, all you have to do is get
the camera to the service center.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

D100 - no user upgrade for a reason!

Rich Gibson

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts