40-150 f2.8 bricked by EM1mkii

Photo Pete wrote:

Just tried updating the 40-150 f2.8 with Olympus Camera Updater via the EM1 mkii.

As soon as I pressed 'update' I got a message on the computer screen saying 'unable to communicate with camera'. The rear of the camera was, however, showing the updating symbols. Assuming that the camera was actually updating despite the 'failure to communicate' message, I left the camera connected to the computer in that state, waiting for the OK message to display, until the camera eventually turned itself off (must have been around 50 minutes).

Result - a totally bricked 40-150 f2.8 lens. Turn the camera on with the 40-150 connected and it doesn't display any image. It won't autofocus or respond in any way whatsoever.

Bl**dy stupid that the update process can put the camera and lens at risk like this should some communication error or software error occur.

Anyone know of a way to rescue the lens without sending it back to Olympus?

Firstly check out the update procedure again. Carefully.

Then try doing the update procedure again. If necessary, repeat.

If after all of that, it still fails, get help.

Photo Pete wrote:

Anyone know of a way to rescue the lens without sending it back to Olympus?

The body can be recovered by copying firmware to SD card and initiating a firmware flashing. But I wonder three things:

1) Either lenses requires a totally own update device for recovery, forcing you to send it to Olympus.

2) Lenses firmware can be flashed same way as the bodies, by firmware itself informing body that it is specific lens firmware and body does it like it does it for itself.

3) Lenses firmware initiation is different from body, so far unknown.

As we already know, the body itself can read a firmware from the SD card and start flashing itself. You don't need a computer to do it because the camera is the computer to do it, just in a "recovery mode" where it goes when you initiate it via computer itself over USB.

And I think that if the engineers has been smart enough, the situation is like in 2, you have the firmware telling to the recovery mode that update the firmware to lens. If I would have a bricked lens, I would risk for it, but as I don't I am not going to test it

Then that would have a problem, as we know how you can download a firmware from Olympus server without their software and how to rename it for card for flashing, I haven't seen any way to download the lens firmware and how it should be renamed to do downgrade.

It wouldn't hurt to carefully clean the body & lens contacts, and make sure it's fully locked in the mount. Those problems can strike any gear.

Also, if you have an old body around, give the lens a try on it and see what happens.

Please let us know how it works out, and good luck.

MicekyVee wrote:

The same thing happened to me a couple of months ago with my 40-150 Pro. Unless the updater can see the lens, you're bricked. If it still can, you can try the update again. Fortunately mine was still under warranty and the Olympus Service Centre is a 5 minute drive from me. Had it back in a couple of days.

Good Luck!

Thank-you all for the replies.

It seems like the lens is well and truly bricked. The updater cannot see the lens anymore so I have no way to start the update process again. I certainly don't like the idea of hacking the update with a SD card in the camera (particularly not with the new EM1mkii being the camera!).

Olympus warranty for the 40-150 is in place until June 2017 so it will have to go back for a warranty repair. Hopefully it will be repaired without any undue hassle, although I have a football match to shoot tomorrow and I'm a bit p****d of at having to shoot it with the 75-300 rather than the 40-150 and mc-14.

What a stupid way to carry out updates. Why do Olympus force us to risk communication errors when they could have an official system to update from SD cards instead?

Several of my other lenses are waiting for firmware updates and I'm too nervous to try doing them now.

Mark Thornton wrote:

I note that Panasonic bodies do perform the update from the SD card and will also update Olympus lenses in this way. So if you want to use the SD card approach, get a (cheap) Panasonic body.

Good to know.

Nikon also perform updates from SD cards. Not sure about other manufacturers as I've not used them... but I'd be interested to know if anyone other than Olympus uses the stupid approach that requires uninterrupted connectivity to the computer during the update process itself.

I've just taken the plunge and updated my 12-40 f2.8 with no problems, so the error seems to have been a random connection failure. With proper design by Olympus that sort of error need never impact upon the firmware update of a £1200 lens. Shame on them.

Photo Pete wrote:

Good to know.

Nikon also perform updates from SD cards. Not sure about other manufacturers as I've not used them... but I'd be interested to know if anyone other than Olympus uses the stupid approach that requires uninterrupted connectivity to the computer during the update process itself.

Fuji is also via SD card.    So far I haven't had any issues but I'm not at all comfortable with a process that doesn't allow for some type of do over in situations like yours.

radsaq wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

Mark Thornton wrote:

I note that Panasonic bodies do perform the update from the SD card and will also update Olympus lenses in this way. So if you want to use the SD card approach, get a (cheap) Panasonic body.

Good to know.

Nikon also perform updates from SD cards. Not sure about other manufacturers as I've not used them... but I'd be interested to know if anyone other than Olympus uses the stupid approach that requires uninterrupted connectivity to the computer during the update process itself.

As a software developer, I'm surprised that it's even possible for this to happen. What theyshould be doing, and what it appears like given the appearance of the update process, is:

1. Download update file from to PC
2. Verify checksum/signature of firmware file on PC
3. Copy update file to camera
4. Verify checksum/signature of firmware file on camera
5. Erase existing firmware
6. Apply new firmware from file

If this is how it worked, then the only failure case should be if power is removed after step 5 completes and before step 6 completes. If the initial download from the internet doesn't get a complete file, or the camera doesn't get a complete file from the PC, it is trivial to detect this. And certainly the camera shouldn't erase anything before it knows it has a valid update file.

Of course, I've never verified that these are in fact the steps that the Olympus update does take. But it certainly looks like it goes through a download, copy to camera, then flash step. Maybe they're not properly looking at signatures/checksums? This is fairly basic stuff, though. It shouldn't be hard to make it mostly bullet-proof (aside from potential loss of power to the camera).

Exactly my thoughts. Communication errors should not be a risk to the update process if the update process is sufficiently robust. If the file is installed to the camera and checked before the update starts then there should be no need to be tethered to a computer at all when the firmware update is actually being applied.

However, the Olympus instructions clearly state that you should not disconnect your camera from the computer whilst it is being updated (until 'OK' is displayed on the camera rear screen)... so I guess the connection is required for something and we can assume that they are not installing in the way that you have indicated?

Regardless of the technicalities, I have found out the hard way that the update process is not particularly robust and that a lens can be rendered useless should a communication error occur, even when the user is following Olympus's instructions precisely.

radsaq wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

radsaq wrote:

As a software developer, I'm surprised that it's even possible for this to happen. What theyshould be doing, and what it appears like given the appearance of the update process, is:

1. Download update file from to PC
2. Verify checksum/signature of firmware file on PC
3. Copy update file to camera
4. Verify checksum/signature of firmware file on camera
5. Erase existing firmware
6. Apply new firmware from file

If this is how it worked, then the only failure case should be if power is removed after step 5 completes and before step 6 completes. If the initial download from the internet doesn't get a complete file, or the camera doesn't get a complete file from the PC, it is trivial to detect this. And certainly the camera shouldn't erase anything before it knows it has a valid update file.

Of course, I've never verified that these are in fact the steps that the Olympus update does take. But it certainly looks like it goes through a download, copy to camera, then flash step. Maybe they're not properly looking at signatures/checksums? This is fairly basic stuff, though. It shouldn't be hard to make it mostly bullet-proof (aside from potential loss of power to the camera).

Exactly my thoughts. Communication errors should not be a risk to the update process if the update process is sufficiently robust. If the file is installed to the camera and checked before the update starts then there should be no need to be tethered to a computer at all when the firmware update is actually being applied.

However, the Olympus instructions clearly state that you should not disconnect your camera from the computer whilst it is being updated (until 'OK' is displayed on the camera rear screen)... so I guess the connection is required for something and we can assume that they are not installing in the way that you have indicated?

Regardless of the technicalities, I have found out the hard way that the update process is not particularly robust and that a lens can be rendered useless should a communication error occur, even when the user is following Olympus's instructions precisely.

I always assumed that the "don't disconnect until it's done" is there simply so that people don't get careless. But I've never been willing to experiment and find out.

I wouldn't like to experiment to find out the details either.... but I didn't really get a choice.