HOWTO: Downgrading MC-11 to 1.05 firmware

[antst]

This idea was raised by me half year ago, yes

and, indeed, I got not much of feedback

 

[antst]

PayPal link is not missing, it is at the end of first post

 

[antst]

so... what still might be missing perhaps would be a little ppal account's link?

Not missing, it is at the end of the first post

ant.starikov(at)gmail.com

 

[antst]

Till the end of week, I will try to prepare solution which allows change of FW not only to 1.05, but also to later version by choice. Let's see if I will be able to make it.

 

[jpr2]

This idea was raised by me half year ago, yes

and, indeed, I got not much of feedback

yep, I remember that & it must still be laying somewhere in DPR's archives. Alas. both the attendance and activities of knowledgeable folks @DPR fail very short of what it used to be just a mere few years ago.

The problem would be (as I see it) to find a suitable supply of:

• {i} a very well machined (preferably brass, and electroplated to high-matte, black finish) to an utmost accuracy "raw" adapters of a predefined thickness;

• {ii} appropriate bayonet mounts for the lens and camera ends - again very accurately made, such that their combined thickness will match flange distances, suitable for e.g. Canon-EF/EFs to Sony-FE/E (or EF/EFs to Fuji-XF, or Sigma to both, etc);
• and that would be an "easy part" (although the required machining accuracy might be an obstacle & turn problematic - as it often does fail even for the most reputable adapter makers);

• the "tough part" will be programmable PCBs units with contacts matching brand specific layouts and communication protocols on the "lens" and the "camera" ends;

jpr2

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
~

 

[antst]

Actually, hardware part is not an issue at all. Just trivial mechanics, although requires accuracy, and quite trivial electronics. All difficulties are in software part.

but to start, few copies of mechanics are required and might be replaced quite ok with mechanics from cheap Chinese adapters, just strip their electronics and have some development board hanging on the wires attached through the home in adapter to the pins. No point to order hardware before at least first approximation to working software is available.

 

[jpr2]

Actually, hardware part is not an issue at all. Just trivial mechanics, although requires accuracy, and quite trivial electronics. All difficulties are in software part.

but to start, few copies of mechanics are required and might be replaced quite ok with mechanics from cheap Chinese adapters, just strip their electronics and have some development board hanging on the wires attached through the home in adapter to the pins. No point to order hardware before at least first approximation to working software is available.

indeed, although... how'd you guesstimate which el cheapo PCBs might me amenable to this particular project singular needs? Some (perhaps even most ??) will be way to rigid in their abilities to be programmed flexibly, no?

Some users here and elsewhere (most notably on the Eos-M forum, while trying to concoct their private version of Eos-EF to Eos-EM speed-boosters [focal reducers] did advance along their parallel route quite far = they got to their goal!! although there was much less of protocol-mapping hassle involved: Canon-to-Canon on both sides of the adapter ).

best, jpr2

PS My stress on machining accuracy was about the final [eventual] product of such a project - as users will not (nor they ever should) trust their pretty costly, multi-thousand $$ long primes & zooms, on an unknown adapter. So... any mishap[s ] in that area will kill the project by ill-reputation. And an excellence in machining accuracy does cost - so no miracles - one gets what one pays for )

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
~

 

[Potemkin_Photo]

Thanks for putting that firmware back up. My EF 24-105 L now works with face detection and AF (albeit slowly). Sadly, no other EF lenses work with my a6000. A little disappointed with image quality, but I suppose the higher resolution of the sensor may be showing imperfections in my old glass. I remember thinking 10 years ago that the EF 24-105 L looked spetacular every time on the gold ol trusty 5D. And it is an L lense. But just not that great on new bodies. Or perhaps there is a bit of slop added by a non-perfect adapter-to body-to lense fit.

Anyhow, thank you again.

 

[antst]

Old 24-105/4L isn’t that perfect everywhere by modern standards it is still very good video-lens for many situations. Resolution limit isn’t that important for video.

What surprises me is that on DXO 2-nd revision of 24-105L rated with even lower resolution (18 vs 14)

 

[jpr2]

Old 24-105/4L isn’t that perfect everywhere by modern standards it is still very good video-lens for many situations. Resolution limit isn’t that important for video.

What surprises me is that on DXO 2-nd revision of 24-105L rated with even lower resolution (18 vs 14)

to be entirely honest and strict at the same time, the only way to get truly comparable results from the Imatest or DXO methodology (where everything is proportional to HW-driven lines per picture height) would be to compare the whole set of lenses on exactly same sized and pixel pitched sensors.

And given the available variety and sheer number of adapters: allowing almost any lens to be tested on, say, 42Mpix sensored FE-mount camera, it is quite puzzling why they do not perform and compare their tests in this way??

jpr2

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
~

 

[antst]

Canon lenses they test on 5DSR. And there are newer canon lenses which shine in terms of resolution.

24-105 just isn’t one of them and never was. It is still very usable lens. I had it and used it with canon. But it doesn’t shine

 

[leungkk]

Looks like it can be missed otherwise.

I made a procedure for downgrade to 1.05, which is described in other thread, but just in case, here is instruction:

What you need to do

1) configure on your PC/Mac proxy server for HTTP

host: mc11.antst.net

port: 8088

2) Run Sigma Optimization Pro, it will prompt to update firmware, do it.

3) Enjoy 1.05

While you use my proxy, you will have no access to other HTTP sites, as it allows only what is necessary for MC-11 FW downgrade. After you downgraded FW, remove proxy settings.

Disclaimer: I can not guarantee anything for obvious reasons It is fully your responsibility if you choose to use my hack. So far it worked for everyone who did it (about 30 users, Mac and PC)

If you feel like buying beer for me for this effort, I wouldn't mind, my PayPal is ant.starikov_at_gmail.com

Thank you so much, I have changed it to 1.05 now is it far the best firmware for A7ii by now?

 

[sjazz]

Bringing back this thread as I updated my MC-11 to Ver. 1.12 and I can't focus with my Sigma Art lenses.

I tried to downgrade the MC-11 but it seems that the proxy is not working, OP any chance to revive it?

----------------------

Update:

I upgraded the firmware of the lenses and everything works now, the 135mm much better than the 24-105

 

[Potemkin_Photo]

Bringing back this thread as I updated my MC-11 to Ver. 1.12 and I can't focus with my Sigma Art lenses.

I tried to downgrade the MC-11 but it seems that the proxy is not working, OP any chance to revive it?

----------------------

Update:

I upgraded the firmware of the lenses and everything works now, the 135mm much better than the 24-105

--
j.a.

 

[Potemkin_Photo]

Bringing back this thread as I updated my MC-11 to Ver. 1.12 and I can't focus with my Sigma Art lenses.

I tried to downgrade the MC-11 but it seems that the proxy is not working, OP any chance to revive it?

----------------------

Update:

I upgraded the firmware of the lenses and everything works now, the 135mm much better than the 24-105

 

[Potemkin_Photo]

Bringing back this thread as I updated my MC-11 to Ver. 1.12 and I can't focus with my Sigma Art lenses.

I tried to downgrade the MC-11 but it seems that the proxy is not working, OP any chance to revive it?

----------------------

Update:

I upgraded the firmware of the lenses and everything works now, the 135mm much better than the 24-105

 

[Hand819]

The host you posted doesn't seem to be working....or at least not in the new version of the optimization pro software. Is this still available? I have an older sigma lens that worked amazingly on an mc-11 I rented and the one I bought has current firmware and I can't even control aperture or use any AF. Any help would be greatly appreciated and I would certainly contribute to your PayPal for the effort.

 

[antst]

Hey! I will try to find time to check on Sunday.

Now I have MC-11 again, this should make my life easier, as I can test it myself now.

 

[Rickford55]

Hi just wondering if you have had a chance to look at this????

If you can find a fix I'll defo buy you a beer heck I'll buy you two!

 

[Martini_IM]

Also looking for this. New firmwares are really bad for A7II.