G-2 new firmware 1.0.1.0 improvements ONLY

[Kenn Hwang60633]

Speculation is all fine and good, but in the end it's just speculation. Why did Microsoft jump the version number to X (10?) for the Mac? Different companies (and divisions within companies) have different methodologies and reasons for naming things the way they do (both public and internal).

Just as plausible an explanation is that there are differences in how the G2 and G1 function, and Canon engineers had to go through more revisionsor more testing to fix and verify the same problem.

The fact is there are any number of possibilities, and none of us know what the real deal is. So in light of that sure it's fun to speculate, but until we get some real test results (preferably from 2 different cameras with the same flash card, and a stopwatch instead of "one-one-thousand"), citing version numbers alone is not much of an argument

Peace,
Kenn

Slightly paranoid? Huh?.....What's to be paranoid about?

As you can see if you read the thread, the sad old cynics around
here (like me!) suggest that everytime there is a BIOS upgrade,
there is the usual paranoia that our suppliers are hiding things
from us, therefore for every 1 change that has been made and
admitted to, there have been 15 or so that Canon for some reason
has 'snuck in' on the quiet.

One of the key reasons for the possibility for a customer to
perform BIOS upgrades is to inspire consumer confidence that
manufacturers can, and will, fix problems that are found after
shipping, thereby extending the life of the product. - This is no
different to any normal software company.

I personally believe most companies would rather declare ALL
changes than take the support calls that are generated each
release, asking "is my xxxx problem fixed now?" - customer support
is costly and eats their profits.

In my opinion the only "bugs" that a supplier might choose NOT to
admit to fixing in a BIOS release are those that could be deemed to
show obvious neglect or carelessnes, or problems that could have
caused data loss or corruption.

If a Canon engineer went to the marketing department and said "Hey,
we just rewrote the autofocus algorithm for the G2, and guess what,
now its 10% faster" wouldnt they want to shout about it?!

If you wanted to look for a conspiracy theory on this story, try
this one... Canon found that overcharging of BP511 batteries
actually caused fire or explosion in some cases, but found out
before a customer got injured, and now are trying to get us all
to upgrade before we kill ourselves... now THERES a better
conspiracy theory for this upgrade!

By the way... for my new Pro90 Bios, a binary comparison Of the
about 35 binary files that made up the upgrade, showed that only
the following 8 files were changed, with a total of only 3452 bytes
of changes - that to my mind doesnt sound like the whole host of
improvements some people are hoping for. (As a comparison, this
entire message is about 2500 bytes)

a.img,b.img,b21.img,b24.img,b25.img,b5.img,p.dat,romupd.exe

So anyway, call me a miserable, negative, cynical old bas*&ard, but
i believe there WAS only one change, the one admitted to by Canon...

OK, you are free to believe whatever you want...

One question: What is your theory on why the numbering convention
changed for the G2 firmware release? From 1.0.0.0 to 1.0.1.0 in
one public release. The G1 and Pro90 are only at 1.0.0.3 after a
couple of public releases. From my experience, there are usually
two reasons for the number jump on the G2: 1) There were 9 Canon
internal releases before the first public update; or 2)
Incrementing the second position from the right indicates a more
MAJOR update than incrementing the first number. Either way, it
seems like more happened on the G2 than the Pro90 or the G1...

I'm interested to hear your belief on this one...

--
---------------- A happy Pro90 owner! ----------------

 

[Kenn Hwang60633]

Hi Bob,

You're right in that there definitely ARE circumstances where BIOS updates can fix or speed up operations significantly, and these can be as simple as adjusting a timeout or as significant as rewriting unoptimized code. I just feel there's a lot of unsubstantiated rumor going on about this particular upgrade, and above all I just want to get to the bottom of it.

I wish I had sat on the fw for a day so I could do some timing/capture tests myself, but I missed my chance Perhaps someone who hasn't updated their camera yet could take a couple of hours and run through the major operations with a stopwatch.

Kenn

Sure I'm well aware of that. However, stick around these situations
long enough and you begin to see a familiar trend in how people
react to these changes. Everyone WANTS to see an improvement, and
it's really not that hard to convince yourself that there is one,
especially if you use statements like "It focused much faster on a
scene where before it would have had a lot of trouble." No actual
test, no verification of identical testing situations. Just
conjecture.

I'm not saying that all of these changes and claims of changes are
bogus, just that people should take a deep breath before believing
everything they read.

Also, keep in mind that focus speed was not the only thing
discussed. We had reports of startup times speeding up, startup
sounds being replaced, AF assist lamps shining brighter, and so
forth. Realistically, while your post makes a lot of sense, there's
even more being talked about that really shouldn't be affected with
a firmware update.

Kenn

I've upgraded my G1 but have yet to do any real tests.

I got to thinking about all the other stuff on this thread.

Either Canon are so ashamed of the bugs/errors/problems before the
upgrades, that they didn't want to have to admit they needed to
make all these wonderful changes.....

Or, they've done the absolute minimum to avoid having to turn
around expensive returns for batteries conking out.

I wonder what you would do in their position?

 

[NKH]

actually, i think using two cameras is a mistake...too many other factors involved. i think before and after is the best approach provided care is taken to repeat everything exactly and making sure the environmental variables are the same.

personally, i do believe there were other changes made as part of the firmware update even though i am somewhat of a skeptic. prior to updating my firmware, i went around the house and office extensively trying to get a feeling for how long it took to achieve focus lock under a variety of circumstances. although not scientific, it definitely SEEMS faster to me. i also went back a zoomed in on different areas of the pictures i took to 600% and put them side by side, though subtle, there seems to be a tad more contrast and the whites were a tad whiter and the shadows a tad darker.

now, even if i'm imagining all this, and i don't think i am, i'm STILL a happier camper than before! ;-)

 

[Bob Williams]

I would film the G-1 in operation before and after, but I
can't right now. My kid has the camcorder at his house hooked
up to the telescope. Not a lot of resolution, but it gives him
some capture options that work pretty good.

You're right in that there definitely ARE circumstances where BIOS
updates can fix or speed up operations significantly, and these can
be as simple as adjusting a timeout or as significant as rewriting
unoptimized code. I just feel there's a lot of unsubstantiated
rumor going on about this particular upgrade, and above all I just
want to get to the bottom of it.

I wish I had sat on the fw for a day so I could do some
timing/capture tests myself, but I missed my chance Perhaps
someone who hasn't updated their camera yet could take a couple of
hours and run through the major operations with a stopwatch.

Kenn

Sure I'm well aware of that. However, stick around these situations
long enough and you begin to see a familiar trend in how people
react to these changes. Everyone WANTS to see an improvement, and
it's really not that hard to convince yourself that there is one,
especially if you use statements like "It focused much faster on a
scene where before it would have had a lot of trouble." No actual
test, no verification of identical testing situations. Just
conjecture.

I'm not saying that all of these changes and claims of changes are
bogus, just that people should take a deep breath before believing
everything they read.

Also, keep in mind that focus speed was not the only thing
discussed. We had reports of startup times speeding up, startup
sounds being replaced, AF assist lamps shining brighter, and so
forth. Realistically, while your post makes a lot of sense, there's
even more being talked about that really shouldn't be affected with
a firmware update.

Kenn

I've upgraded my G1 but have yet to do any real tests.

I got to thinking about all the other stuff on this thread.

Either Canon are so ashamed of the bugs/errors/problems before the
upgrades, that they didn't want to have to admit they needed to
make all these wonderful changes.....

Or, they've done the absolute minimum to avoid having to turn
around expensive returns for batteries conking out.

I wonder what you would do in their position?

 

[Marc58280]

I posted this on its own thread but I guess its more appropriate here so...

I read through all the threads regarding the firmware update on this forum and came away with the following thoughts:

1. I believe Canon would not necessarily discuss all enhancements to the camera. There is not a lot of upside in it for them to do that. It generally creates more questions for Canon then it is worth. That said, there's no reason for them not to make some easy improvements and hope their customers are satisfied.

2. It is strange that they call this firmware update 1.0.1.0 whereas the G1 update is only up to 1.0.0.3. This implies a next order update that the G1 has not yet had. Much more than a battery charging fix.

3. I doubt I now have 5x optical zoom.

So before doing the update, I decided to take a bunch of indoor shots where I've had occasional focussing issues in the past. I also did some simple timings to see if there were any marked differences in performance. Here's what I found:

Startup time before: 5.9 seconds
Startup time after: 6.0 seconds (basically the same)
Shutdown time before: 4.4 seconds
Shutdown time after: 4.4 seconds (uh, the same)

Off to replay mode before: 5.7 seconds
Off to replay mode after: 3.1 seconds (!!!!!!!!)
Off to replay mode with empty CF card before: 4.6 seconds
Off to replay mode with empty CF card after: 2.5 seconds (wow!)

WELL! I believe there is definately some improvement. That is too big a difference to just be an error. Replay mode is much faster to activate. Unfortunately, startup time is unchanged. Sorry, that is all I thought to thouroughly test. There could have been some other obvious things to time but I didn't bother.

As far as focussing, I could not notice any particular speed difference during my brief exercise. But I have yet to test it fully. I simply took the same type of pictures I attempted to take before the update and did not notice any difference in the "feeling" of the speed of focus. I found it difficult to actually time the focus so I didn't try and instead just tried to carefully observe if it felt faster. It could be, I don't know. But something other than the battery charging has definately been changed IMO, and that I am certainly pleased with.

Marc

 

[Mike K]

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=2086545

While not definitive on all the claimed firmware upgrade issues, it does provide some hard data that there is more going on than just battery charging. Perhaps the processor is working some tasks faster?
Mike K

You're right in that there definitely ARE circumstances where BIOS
updates can fix or speed up operations significantly, and these can
be as simple as adjusting a timeout or as significant as rewriting
unoptimized code. I just feel there's a lot of unsubstantiated
rumor going on about this particular upgrade, and above all I just
want to get to the bottom of it.

I wish I had sat on the fw for a day so I could do some
timing/capture tests myself, but I missed my chance Perhaps
someone who hasn't updated their camera yet could take a couple of
hours and run through the major operations with a stopwatch.

Kenn

Sure I'm well aware of that. However, stick around these situations
long enough and you begin to see a familiar trend in how people
react to these changes. Everyone WANTS to see an improvement, and
it's really not that hard to convince yourself that there is one,
especially if you use statements like "It focused much faster on a
scene where before it would have had a lot of trouble." No actual
test, no verification of identical testing situations. Just
conjecture.

I'm not saying that all of these changes and claims of changes are
bogus, just that people should take a deep breath before believing
everything they read.

Also, keep in mind that focus speed was not the only thing
discussed. We had reports of startup times speeding up, startup
sounds being replaced, AF assist lamps shining brighter, and so
forth. Realistically, while your post makes a lot of sense, there's
even more being talked about that really shouldn't be affected with
a firmware update.

Kenn

I've upgraded my G1 but have yet to do any real tests.

I got to thinking about all the other stuff on this thread.

Either Canon are so ashamed of the bugs/errors/problems before the
upgrades, that they didn't want to have to admit they needed to
make all these wonderful changes.....

Or, they've done the absolute minimum to avoid having to turn
around expensive returns for batteries conking out.

I wonder what you would do in their position?

 

[blulegend]

Did you measure Record to Play and vice versa? I use that a lot.

-Jack

I posted this on its own thread but I guess its more appropriate
here so...

I read through all the threads regarding the firmware update on
this forum and came away with the following thoughts:

1. I believe Canon would not necessarily discuss all enhancements
to the camera. There is not a lot of upside in it for them to do
that. It generally creates more questions for Canon then it is
worth. That said, there's no reason for them not to make some easy
improvements and hope their customers are satisfied.

2. It is strange that they call this firmware update 1.0.1.0
whereas the G1 update is only up to 1.0.0.3. This implies a next
order update that the G1 has not yet had. Much more than a battery
charging fix.

3. I doubt I now have 5x optical zoom.

So before doing the update, I decided to take a bunch of indoor
shots where I've had occasional focussing issues in the past. I
also did some simple timings to see if there were any marked
differences in performance. Here's what I found:

Startup time before: 5.9 seconds
Startup time after: 6.0 seconds (basically the same)
Shutdown time before: 4.4 seconds
Shutdown time after: 4.4 seconds (uh, the same)

Off to replay mode before: 5.7 seconds
Off to replay mode after: 3.1 seconds (!!!!!!!!)
Off to replay mode with empty CF card before: 4.6 seconds
Off to replay mode with empty CF card after: 2.5 seconds (wow!)

WELL! I believe there is definately some improvement. That is too
big a difference to just be an error. Replay mode is much faster to
activate. Unfortunately, startup time is unchanged. Sorry, that is
all I thought to thouroughly test. There could have been some other
obvious things to time but I didn't bother.

As far as focussing, I could not notice any particular speed
difference during my brief exercise. But I have yet to test it
fully. I simply took the same type of pictures I attempted to take
before the update and did not notice any difference in the
"feeling" of the speed of focus. I found it difficult to actually
time the focus so I didn't try and instead just tried to carefully
observe if it felt faster. It could be, I don't know. But something
other than the battery charging has definately been changed IMO,
and that I am certainly pleased with.

Marc

---Jack==================Galleries: 1) http://www.pbase.com/blulegend/ 2) http://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=AB8C5232351&cb=PACurr: Canon PowerShot G2Prev: CP995, CP880, S10, S20, Oly D-340R

 

[Mike K]

Do a forum search for "G2 shortcourse" for more opinions. It is a good book melding the camera manual with a description of photographic principles. It is quite basic and appropriate for the photographic neophyte. It is way too basic for those with a decent understanding of film photography.
Mike K

I ordered a G2 from Harmony Computers on Sunday.. I hope to get it
by the end of the week.. It was shipped out today.. I hope I have
the current firmware.. I wont be able to see the difference you
guys are talking about but Ive never owned a digital camera
before.. So I am not going to undertsand anything about it for a
while.. I just wanted one for the fun of it.. Ive always wanted a
digital camera but then I kept changing my mind and saying oh I
don't need one cause I have a good scanner.. But then I saw a
couple peoples that just got them and one was the G2. I finally
came searched and searched and found the G2 to be one of the
best... I can't wait to get it now.. I don't take a lot of
pictures now but I wll with this just to play around with.. Should
I buy the shortcut book since I will know nothing about this? I
can't wait to get it.. Rose

--
Rose

 

[Russ C]

You do mean Apple, right?

Don't buy it. It doesn't take 10 released iterations to make the same fix that took one in a nearly identical camera. Nor do I think that the G2 is produced by a totally different Canon division with different numbering schemes.

My last company was a Canon subsidiary dealing with Multi-function Printers/Copiers. We wrote the non-Japanese software interfacing with these machines. We were basically INTERNAL, but still we would be surprised by unannounced changes in hardware and firmware. Canon is nothing if not VERY methodical, but they keep their rationale for some things to themselves for whatever reason (marketing, technology race, patents,...) We mostly chalked it up to the cultural differences...

I'm just saying that I am definitely seeing much less of the yellow (couldn't get focus) box and the green (focus lock) box is much quicker to illuminate. I don't know if this means that actual focus is occurring faster or better. (I wish I'd have done some timing beforehand...)

Anyway, I'm not going to beat this near-dead horse anymore until he shows more signs of life (timings, please).

Just as plausible an explanation is that there are differences in
how the G2 and G1 function, and Canon engineers had to go through
more revisionsor more testing to fix and verify the same problem.

The fact is there are any number of possibilities, and none of us
know what the real deal is. So in light of that sure it's fun to
speculate, but until we get some real test results (preferably from
2 different cameras with the same flash card, and a stopwatch
instead of "one-one-thousand"), citing version numbers alone is not
much of an argument

Peace,
Kenn

Slightly paranoid? Huh?.....What's to be paranoid about?

As you can see if you read the thread, the sad old cynics around
here (like me!) suggest that everytime there is a BIOS upgrade,
there is the usual paranoia that our suppliers are hiding things
from us, therefore for every 1 change that has been made and
admitted to, there have been 15 or so that Canon for some reason
has 'snuck in' on the quiet.

One of the key reasons for the possibility for a customer to
perform BIOS upgrades is to inspire consumer confidence that
manufacturers can, and will, fix problems that are found after
shipping, thereby extending the life of the product. - This is no
different to any normal software company.

I personally believe most companies would rather declare ALL
changes than take the support calls that are generated each
release, asking "is my xxxx problem fixed now?" - customer support
is costly and eats their profits.

In my opinion the only "bugs" that a supplier might choose NOT to
admit to fixing in a BIOS release are those that could be deemed to
show obvious neglect or carelessnes, or problems that could have
caused data loss or corruption.

If a Canon engineer went to the marketing department and said "Hey,
we just rewrote the autofocus algorithm for the G2, and guess what,
now its 10% faster" wouldnt they want to shout about it?!

If you wanted to look for a conspiracy theory on this story, try
this one... Canon found that overcharging of BP511 batteries
actually caused fire or explosion in some cases, but found out
before a customer got injured, and now are trying to get us all
to upgrade before we kill ourselves... now THERES a better
conspiracy theory for this upgrade!

By the way... for my new Pro90 Bios, a binary comparison Of the
about 35 binary files that made up the upgrade, showed that only
the following 8 files were changed, with a total of only 3452 bytes
of changes - that to my mind doesnt sound like the whole host of
improvements some people are hoping for. (As a comparison, this
entire message is about 2500 bytes)

a.img,b.img,b21.img,b24.img,b25.img,b5.img,p.dat,romupd.exe

So anyway, call me a miserable, negative, cynical old bas*&ard, but
i believe there WAS only one change, the one admitted to by Canon...

OK, you are free to believe whatever you want...

One question: What is your theory on why the numbering convention
changed for the G2 firmware release? From 1.0.0.0 to 1.0.1.0 in
one public release. The G1 and Pro90 are only at 1.0.0.3 after a
couple of public releases. From my experience, there are usually
two reasons for the number jump on the G2: 1) There were 9 Canon
internal releases before the first public update; or 2)
Incrementing the second position from the right indicates a more
MAJOR update than incrementing the first number. Either way, it
seems like more happened on the G2 than the Pro90 or the G1...

I'm interested to hear your belief on this one...

--
---------------- A happy Pro90 owner! ----------------

 

[nboyer]

Martin,

With all due respect to you, I've gone back and forth on these images and invited a couple friends to compare. They both immediately spotted the softness in the after shot. Being a G2 owner, I have no self interest in trying to make the G2 look bad. Like I said, I hope that the softness that I see is due to resizing and not with the upgraded firmware. I am using a 19" Optiquest V95 monitor with a Viper V550 video adapter and I assure you, I see the softness in the 2000 on the blue round sticker. No over analyzing here.

Norman

While I perceive the 'after' shots to be a slight bit brighter, in
both of these before and after comparisons, the lettering on the
Norton box is softer on the after shots. Take a close look at the
round blue 2000 sticker on the box. That sticker is definitely
softer on the after picture. I hope this really isn't the case and
is a result of reducing the size of the original. I just updated
to the new firmware and would hate to think that it made a poor
decision. -Norm

I don't see the same thing you do in those shots, the stickers look
identical at 100% and one certainly isn't "definitely" softer than
the other. I fear we're all at risk of over-analysing things here.

Martin

 

[Tony Lau #65171]

I couldn't tell if focuxing is faster as well, but at least not slower Same as AWB and 5x zoom (heh), not noticeable improvement so far. The replay mode IS starting up faster tho, that's for sure, and that's a nice touch.

Can someone do a noise comparsion with the new firmware update? I feel that my ISO 200 shots are more clear than before... but can someone confirm that...

Tony

As far as focussing, I could not notice any particular speed
difference during my brief exercise. But I have yet to test it
fully. I simply took the same type of pictures I attempted to take
before the update and did not notice any difference in the
"feeling" of the speed of focus. I found it difficult to actually
time the focus so I didn't try and instead just tried to carefully
observe if it felt faster. It could be, I don't know. But something
other than the battery charging has definately been changed IMO,
and that I am certainly pleased with.

Marc

 

[Kenn Hwang60633]

Agreed here with waiting for updates.

I've deal with overseas companies with local divisions too, and this is an all-too common occurance. In fact, it happens all the time between departments of the same company in the same building, too One of the facts of business.

One thing I would ask is this: If the cameras are so similar, why would the G2 get a focus update and not the G1? Seems a bit contradictory to say that it shouldn't take multiple revisions because the two cameras are nearly

identical, and then say the G2 gets a boatload of new features because it's a different camera?

I'm not saying you're wrong by the way, just looking at the flipside of the coin - ie things are not always as clear-cut as a little assumption makes them seem!

Waiting for objective timing tests myself,
Kenn

You do mean Apple, right?

Don't buy it. It doesn't take 10 released iterations to make the
same fix that took one in a nearly identical camera. Nor do I
think that the G2 is produced by a totally different Canon division
with different numbering schemes.

My last company was a Canon subsidiary dealing with Multi-function
Printers/Copiers. We wrote the non-Japanese software interfacing
with these machines. We were basically INTERNAL, but still we
would be surprised by unannounced changes in hardware and firmware.
Canon is nothing if not VERY methodical, but they keep their
rationale for some things to themselves for whatever reason
(marketing, technology race, patents,...) We mostly chalked it up
to the cultural differences...

I'm just saying that I am definitely seeing much less of the yellow
(couldn't get focus) box and the green (focus lock) box is much
quicker to illuminate. I don't know if this means that actual
focus is occurring faster or better. (I wish I'd have done some
timing beforehand...)

Anyway, I'm not going to beat this near-dead horse anymore until he
shows more signs of life (timings, please).

 

[Russ C]

Agreed here with waiting for updates.

I've deal with overseas companies with local divisions too, and
this is an all-too common occurance. In fact, it happens all the
time between departments of the same company in the same building,
too One of the facts of business.

One thing I would ask is this: If the cameras are so similar, why
would the G2 get a focus update and not the G1? Seems a bit
contradictory to say that it shouldn't take multiple revisions
because the two cameras are nearly
identical, and then say the G2 gets a boatload of new features
because it's a different camera?

OK, you sucked me back in

The batteries are the same. Focusing is different. G2 has the focus area selection, the G1 does not. The G3 will undoubtedly have focus area selection also... Maybe a little work done in the G2 before copying the baseline code to the G3?

Also, the G1 is not current. Why enhance something you are no longer selling?

I'm not saying you're wrong by the way, just looking at the
flipside of the coin - ie things are not always as clear-cut as a
little assumption makes them seem!

Waiting for objective timing tests myself,
Kenn

You do mean Apple, right?

Don't buy it. It doesn't take 10 released iterations to make the
same fix that took one in a nearly identical camera. Nor do I
think that the G2 is produced by a totally different Canon division
with different numbering schemes.

My last company was a Canon subsidiary dealing with Multi-function
Printers/Copiers. We wrote the non-Japanese software interfacing
with these machines. We were basically INTERNAL, but still we
would be surprised by unannounced changes in hardware and firmware.
Canon is nothing if not VERY methodical, but they keep their
rationale for some things to themselves for whatever reason
(marketing, technology race, patents,...) We mostly chalked it up
to the cultural differences...

I'm just saying that I am definitely seeing much less of the yellow
(couldn't get focus) box and the green (focus lock) box is much
quicker to illuminate. I don't know if this means that actual
focus is occurring faster or better. (I wish I'd have done some
timing beforehand...)

Anyway, I'm not going to beat this near-dead horse anymore until he
shows more signs of life (timings, please).

 

[Skywalker]

LOL

G. Peffer

5) One thread claims it has increased the optical zoom to 5X
without any hardware upgrade (???)

That's certainly a joke.

No joke, plus I hacked the firmware before I uploaded it and got
10x optical zoom.

;-/

Alan

--
'The wretch of today may be happy tomorrow' Macheath

 

[Woods]

gotta admit though, i personally think MF sucks...so i hate to
think what you guys were all putting up with before now. similarly,
i don't think the AF is particularly fast, like all other non-SLR
digicams it is slow and unreliable, esp. in low light.

wonder if these things really happened or is there some form of
group hysteria/ "firmware placebo effect" here??? i guess i can't
say seeing as i've always had these "features"....

any other original 1.01 owners out there thinking this too?

Has anyone checked manual focusing yet?

The zoomed picture seems a lot clearer than in the past. The last
time I tried using manual focus was some weeks ago, but I remember
being less than impressed with the image. If anyone has not yet
upgraded, check the quality of the zoomed up image in manual focus
mode before and after the firmware upgrade.

Definitely. I use MF a lot, though I had't tried it after the
upgrade till you mentioned it. WOW, it's very, very clear. Oh boy..
what else is there to discover? I sense even more CP5k owners will
be switching sides soon...

Dang, I just believed the statement from Canon about the battery
problem fix and wondered WHY the update should be 1.5Mb... smiling
in Germany,
--
Willie G.
Kulmbach. Germany
Canon G2

• my eyeglasses are from Carl Zeiss -

http://www.pbase.com/effzee

--
------------------------------------
i was gonna type something witty here but then i changed my mind.

Warren,

Your glass is obviously half empty, there is no since in your bringing everyone else down. Be positive or don’t be at all.

JW

 

[rshhung]

I have read so many threads in this forum about this new firmware
but none focused on findings of the likely improvements. I'll
list them below what other users have reported:

1) Battery charging fixed - official statement
2) Focus faster
3) Puts it in ready mode quicker when first switched on
4) One thread claims G2's flash is now more powerful (?)
5) One thread claims it has increased the optical zoom to 5X
without any hardware upgrade (???)

Anything else in
1) color handling
2) sharpness
3) focus in dark settings
4) flash light accuracy
5) Macro
6) handling of WB
7) Anything that you found but not listed

I may be old and blind, but... where oh where does it state in the Canon > download info that anything but the charge mode is affected??

Look, the low charge thing is something that affects the
availability of the camera, it had to be addressed. But do you
really think that the G2 firmware has been sitting on a shelf
collecting dust for the last six months? Heck, there were probably
"optimizations" being worked on that didn't make the final cut of
the initial release because of time constraints. You think they
just threw those out? It's also entirely possible that the code
base shares some modules with the G1, Pro90, Pro95/100, or G3.
Those "optimizations" would get inherited if that were the case.

And one other thing, remember we are dealing with a Japanese
company. Different mindset. With an American software company
you'd get (hopefully) a laundry list of changes/updates. But a
Japanese camera/electronics company....?

Thanks
cheers
Jeff

As with Japanese made automobile which has less recall rate than those made in Detroit. Japanese manufacturer are being more careful so they want to get it right before any release.

 

[Kenn Hwang60633]

Hehe, ok let's let this rest. I think we could both be right, and I'd be much happier if you were correct (we'd all have better cameras). Unfortunately, I haven't noticed any siginificant changes (someone did a timed before/after stopwatch test with the off-to-playback that showed some improvement, but with a 1GB microdrive it still takes 5-7 seconds for me...sigh), but eventually someone will grab a stopwatch and a few minutes before they zap their firmware!

Kenn

OK, you sucked me back in

The batteries are the same. Focusing is different. G2 has the
focus area selection, the G1 does not. The G3 will undoubtedly
have focus area selection also... Maybe a little work done in the
G2 before copying the baseline code to the G3?

Also, the G1 is not current. Why enhance something you are no
longer selling?

 

[morris]

The .img files are jpg images of the LCD screen. I have not figured out what the p.dat file is or the romupd.exe. As far as how much code it takes to make a change, the following Fortran statement was in the code for Agena I. “I=1.10000” The line should have read “I=1,10000”. Agena I went out of control and had to be destroyed by the range safety officer. This is a 1-byte change. In my many years as a computer programmer I have seen many 1 byte patches make a huge difference.

Morris

Slightly paranoid? Huh?.....What's to be paranoid about?

As you can see if you read the thread, the sad old cynics around
here (like me!) suggest that everytime there is a BIOS upgrade,
there is the usual paranoia that our suppliers are hiding things
from us, therefore for every 1 change that has been made and
admitted to, there have been 15 or so that Canon for some reason
has 'snuck in' on the quiet.

One of the key reasons for the possibility for a customer to
perform BIOS upgrades is to inspire consumer confidence that
manufacturers can, and will, fix problems that are found after
shipping, thereby extending the life of the product. - This is no
different to any normal software company.

I personally believe most companies would rather declare ALL
changes than take the support calls that are generated each
release, asking "is my xxxx problem fixed now?" - customer support
is costly and eats their profits.

In my opinion the only "bugs" that a supplier might choose NOT to
admit to fixing in a BIOS release are those that could be deemed to
show obvious neglect or carelessnes, or problems that could have
caused data loss or corruption.

If a Canon engineer went to the marketing department and said "Hey,
we just rewrote the autofocus algorithm for the G2, and guess what,
now its 10% faster" wouldnt they want to shout about it?!

If you wanted to look for a conspiracy theory on this story, try
this one... Canon found that overcharging of BP511 batteries
actually caused fire or explosion in some cases, but found out
before a customer got injured, and now are trying to get us all
to upgrade before we kill ourselves... now THERES a better
conspiracy theory for this upgrade!

By the way... for my new Pro90 Bios, a binary comparison Of the
about 35 binary files that made up the upgrade, showed that only
the following 8 files were changed, with a total of only 3452 bytes
of changes - that to my mind doesnt sound like the whole host of
improvements some people are hoping for. (As a comparison, this
entire message is about 2500 bytes)

a.img,b.img,b21.img,b24.img,b25.img,b5.img,p.dat,romupd.exe

So anyway, call me a miserable, negative, cynical old bas*&ard, but
i believe there WAS only one change, the one admitted to by Canon...
--
---------------- A happy Pro90 owner! ----------------

 

[morris]

Bob, I was a programmer for many years and agree that all code has anomalies. There is a good chance that the programmer fixed something that was having side affects resulting in other things changing and/or being fixed. Possibilities include our of range error, data overwrite, corrected common subroutine. This is all conjecture.

Weather the changes I have posted are placebo affect or real; there is one thing clear. I have taken many fabulous photos with my G1 and will continue to do so. If the camera works better I will be happy. If I feel it is working better I will be happy.

Morris

I've upgraded my G1 but have yet to do any real tests.

I got to thinking about all the other stuff on this thread.

Either Canon are so ashamed of the bugs/errors/problems before the
upgrades, that they didn't want to have to admit they needed to
make all these wonderful changes.....

Or, they've done the absolute minimum to avoid having to turn
around expensive returns for batteries conking out.

I wonder what you would do in their position?

 

[warren prasek]

on the contrary, i absolutely love my G2 and am certainly not disappointed with it (well okay i wish AF was faster and more reliable, etc etc but overall i highly recommend it to anyone who asks) but if i "keep quiet" as you ask because i'm not being "positive" then we are stifling debate in here.

that is not healthy for anyone, surely we can openly discuss issues like this without being asked to cease and desist? what we really need is validated testing of these supposed new features to see if they really do exist- it still seems far too open to conjecture and subjectivity IMHO.

a little bit of skepticism is a good thing- too much, and a negative attitude, and it becomes cynicism which is counter-productive. i don't believe i have crossed that line and intend not to.

and remember, everyone has a right to their own opinion!

Your glass is obviously half empty, there is no since in your
bringing everyone else down. Be positive or don’t be at all.

JW

--------------------------------------i was gonna type something witty here but then i changed my mind.