Firmware for E20

Hi VJ.

Just wanted to say I think the whole thing is ridiculous. There's been THREE updates??? The damn camera's only been out a little over a year too. And that would mean that if I had originally bought a camera new with just the first version, I'd have had to send the stupid thing back in 3 different times just to stay current....taking on shipping charges, update fees (if applicable) and risking damage each time during shipping.

Sorry......I ordinarily have no complaints with the camera, but this whole firmware stupidity is really asenine.

vjsilva said:

I think the only way you'll get this information is if an Olympus
insider posts it. I honestly can't understand Olympus' thinking
about keeping the changes that were made secret, or not posting
them on the web site.

This goes along with their decision of not allowing customers to
upgrade their own firmware.

In the E-20 I haven't seen any accurate post concerning the
differences between 1.101, 1.102, 1.103 and 1.104. Casual
comparisons of feature changes by users on this forum is incomplete
and doesn't offer much in terms of any minute changes in the
internal operation of the camera.

--VJS

David M. said:

Hi all.
As a result of my post titled Shutter failure poll, I have noticed
that some E20 cams now have the firmware of 1.104 installed. Until
now, I thought I had the latest firmware, but it seems there's been
yet another update since.
Can anyone tell what the new 1.104 firmware update offers over the
previous, and if it's something I should consider? I can't find
any refernce to it on Oly's site (surprise, surprise).
Thanks a ton.

--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/
Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/ Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter

I remember there was some discussion about firmware upgrades when the Olympus guy had the live chat over on Norman camera. He didn't answer my repeated questions about being able to just send in your camera when it is under warranty or not for a firmware upgrade. But he was asked why Olympus didn't let us upgrade the firmware ourselves like Canon (or maybe it is Nikon). His answer was that it would create more problems for Olympus because of the customer not flashing correctly and then they (Olympus) would get the camera back to have to do it right.

--
Leo

Yeh, I remember that. And I still think it's REALLY lame.

I have two Kodak DC4800's, and have upgraded firmware on them both through the memory cards by downloading the file from Kodak's website. It's a VERY simple and painless process. I can't for the life of me imagine how someone could bork it up.
Oly needs a better excuse than that.

jleom said:

I remember there was some discussion about firmware upgrades when
the Olympus guy had the live chat over on Norman camera. He didn't
answer my repeated questions about being able to just send in your
camera when it is under warranty or not for a firmware upgrade. But
he was asked why Olympus didn't let us upgrade the firmware
ourselves like Canon (or maybe it is Nikon). His answer was that it
would create more problems for Olympus because of the customer not
flashing correctly and then they (Olympus) would get the camera
back to have to do it right.

--
Leo

Click to expand...

--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/ Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter

Oh and by the way, I forgot......the way it is now, we STILL have to send the cam in anyway....so the Oly excuse is rather self-defeating, don't you think?

David M. said:

jleom said:

I remember there was some discussion about firmware upgrades when
the Olympus guy had the live chat over on Norman camera. He didn't
answer my repeated questions about being able to just send in your
camera when it is under warranty or not for a firmware upgrade. But
he was asked why Olympus didn't let us upgrade the firmware
ourselves like Canon (or maybe it is Nikon). His answer was that it
would create more problems for Olympus because of the customer not
flashing correctly and then they (Olympus) would get the camera
back to have to do it right.

--
Leo

Click to expand...

--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/
Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter

Click to expand...

--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/ Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter

Here's a little theory I've stumbled into while wasting some time reading another review of the E20 (not Phil's).

Let me know please what you all think of this theory, and tell me if it's really that far off the mark. It's not intended to bash the E20, but intended to question the REAL reasons behind Oly's decision to make the firmware non-accessible for the consumer.

While reading the above mentioned review, a part in it struck me hard as this discussion of firmware here was still fresh in my mind. It concerned the differences between the E10 and 20. Here it is;

"In my opinion, most of these differences are nothing to write home about. Except for the CCD, I suspect that all changes are entirely in software. Don't take this as a criticism: E-10 (still in production) is an excelent piece of gear, and giving it more pixels is a good thing to do. On the other hand, keeping the mechanical design the same means no messing with something that works, but also keeping the cost down."> > >

OK. So the reviewer thinks that it's possible the "improvements" in the E20 are all in the "software", in other words, the firmware. Interesting to say the least.

Now for my theory. Is it possible that Oly does'nt want people getting hold of the source code for the firmware files, which could make it possible to determine this as accurate? If this was found out, Oly would be raged upon for offering an "improved" E10 with a E20 sticker and a much higher sticker price. In other words, Oly could have conceivably installed ALL the improved and added features of the E10, only without the added 1MP of resolution. And charging, originally, over 500$ more just for that. So instead, they decided to cover it up by making the firmware files inaccessible to the public, and continuing the charade of actually offering an upgrade cam from the E10, when all that was really upgraded was the firmware and a slightly higher-res CCD.
Things that make you go hmmmmm......

jleom said:

I remember there was some discussion about firmware upgrades when
the Olympus guy had the live chat over on Norman camera. He didn't
answer my repeated questions about being able to just send in your
camera when it is under warranty or not for a firmware upgrade. But
he was asked why Olympus didn't let us upgrade the firmware
ourselves like Canon (or maybe it is Nikon). His answer was that it
would create more problems for Olympus because of the customer not
flashing correctly and then they (Olympus) would get the camera
back to have to do it right.

--
Leo

Click to expand...

--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/ Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter

That's right! Their way 100% of the owners have to send it in if they want a firmware upgrade, every other company's way maybe 0.5% who somehow screw it up have to send it in. So Olympus' excuse doesn't make sense.

--VJS

David M. said:

David M. said:

jleom said:

I remember there was some discussion about firmware upgrades when
the Olympus guy had the live chat over on Norman camera. He didn't
answer my repeated questions about being able to just send in your
camera when it is under warranty or not for a firmware upgrade. But
he was asked why Olympus didn't let us upgrade the firmware
ourselves like Canon (or maybe it is Nikon). His answer was that it
would create more problems for Olympus because of the customer not
flashing correctly and then they (Olympus) would get the camera
back to have to do it right.

--
Leo

Click to expand...

--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/
Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter

Click to expand...

--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/
Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter

Click to expand...

I had always assumed that is what they did, even without seeing their software. They probably had to increase the RAM buffer slightly. That's probably the only hardware change they made. The R/D still had to be recouped and a bigger CCD is more expensive.

--VJS

David M. said:

"In my opinion, most of these differences are nothing to write home
about. Except for the CCD, I suspect that all changes are entirely
in software. Don't take this as a criticism: E-10 (still in
production) is an excelent piece of gear, and giving it more pixels
is a good thing to do. On the other hand, keeping the mechanical
design the same means no messing with something that works, but
also keeping the cost down."> > >

OK. So the reviewer thinks that it's possible the "improvements"
in the E20 are all in the "software", in other words, the firmware.
Interesting to say the least.
Now for my theory. Is it possible that Oly does'nt want people
getting hold of the source code for the firmware files, which could
make it possible to determine this as accurate? If this was found
out, Oly would be raged upon for offering an "improved" E10 with a
E20 sticker and a much higher sticker price. In other words, Oly
could have conceivably installed ALL the improved and added
features of the E10, only without the added 1MP of resolution. And
charging, originally, over 500$ more just for that. So instead,
they decided to cover it up by making the firmware files
inaccessible to the public, and continuing the charade of actually
offering an upgrade cam from the E10, when all that was really
upgraded was the firmware and a slightly higher-res CCD.
Things that make you go hmmmmm......

jleom said:

I remember there was some discussion about firmware upgrades when
the Olympus guy had the live chat over on Norman camera. He didn't
answer my repeated questions about being able to just send in your
camera when it is under warranty or not for a firmware upgrade. But
he was asked why Olympus didn't let us upgrade the firmware
ourselves like Canon (or maybe it is Nikon). His answer was that it
would create more problems for Olympus because of the customer not
flashing correctly and then they (Olympus) would get the camera
back to have to do it right.

--
Leo

Click to expand...

--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/
Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter

Click to expand...

David M. said:

David M. said:

Hi all.
As a result of my post titled Shutter failure poll, I have noticed
that some E20 cams now have the firmware of 1.104 installed. Until
now, I thought I had the latest firmware, but it seems there's been
yet another update since.
Can anyone tell what the new 1.104 firmware update offers over the
previous, and if it's something I should consider? I can't find
any refernce to it on Oly's site (surprise, surprise).
Thanks a ton.

--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/
Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter

Click to expand...

--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/
Minolta HTs

Click to expand...

David M. said:

David M. said:

MEGAPIXELs WROTE,
I have the version 1.104 firmware for about 3months. Have not
experienced any shutter failure or auto focus problems as in the
past, also compaired to the 1.102 version my RAW shots seem to
load faster and playback is almost instant.
PBase supporter

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

David

Being in technology I would have to agree with your theory pretty much in whole with one addition..... $20 a shot for a 2 minute job, that is $600/hr at god knows how many cameras with no understanding of what is fixed... what a deal for the service department so Oly can accomplish the theory you outlined. Seemingly a win/win for Oly, but.....

What camera are you going to buy next? As much as I 'like' my EXXs, I will be buying something else when the dreaded shutter failure strikes me.

impaled on an Oly

David M. said:

"In my opinion, most of these differences are nothing to write home
about. Except for the CCD, I suspect that all changes are entirely
in software. Don't take this as a criticism: E-10 (still in
production) is an excelent piece of gear, and giving it more pixels
is a good thing to do. On the other hand, keeping the mechanical
design the same means no messing with something that works, but
also keeping the cost down."> > >

OK. So the reviewer thinks that it's possible the "improvements"
in the E20 are all in the "software", in other words, the firmware.
Interesting to say the least.
Now for my theory. Is it possible that Oly does'nt want people
getting hold of the source code for the firmware files, which could
make it possible to determine this as accurate? If this was found
out, Oly would be raged upon for offering an "improved" E10 with a
E20 sticker and a much higher sticker price. In other words, Oly
could have conceivably installed ALL the improved and added
features of the E10, only without the added 1MP of resolution. And
charging, originally, over 500$ more just for that. So instead,
they decided to cover it up by making the firmware files
inaccessible to the public, and continuing the charade of actually
offering an upgrade cam from the E10, when all that was really
upgraded was the firmware and a slightly higher-res CCD.
Things that make you go hmmmmm......

jleom said:

I remember there was some discussion about firmware upgrades when
the Olympus guy had the live chat over on Norman camera. He didn't
answer my repeated questions about being able to just send in your
camera when it is under warranty or not for a firmware upgrade. But
he was asked why Olympus didn't let us upgrade the firmware
ourselves like Canon (or maybe it is Nikon). His answer was that it
would create more problems for Olympus because of the customer not
flashing correctly and then they (Olympus) would get the camera
back to have to do it right.

--
Leo

Click to expand...

--
(DC's)/ Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, (DV)/ Canon GL1, ZR25,(35mm)/
Minolta HTsi+
PBase supporter

Click to expand...

--
Vladmir Slominski - E-20/E-10/All the E goodies/DC-265/D-200/Epson 2200