Canon 20D Firmware Upgrade V2.0.0

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 19:50:20 +0100, "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Has anyone upgraded from version 1.1.0 to 2.0.0? Any problems?
>
>Also , is it worthwhile unless you plan to use the wireless file transmitter
>WFT-E1? Or are there 'hidden' improvements?

Did the day after it was out. No problems. Why not keep current with
your firmware?
*******************************************************

"The world is a book, and those who do not travel,
read only a page."

Saint Augustine (354 - 430)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I had one problem, one that's been experienced by manu users who frequent
the DP Review forums. I began the upgrade, and it froze at 94%. It stayed
there until I pulled the battery, reinserted it, and started again. Then it
completed normally and the camera works fine.

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news 7-dnbA9scWaahnfRVnyrg@pipex.net...
> Has anyone upgraded from version 1.1.0 to 2.0.0? Any problems?
>
> Also , is it worthwhile unless you plan to use the wireless file
> transmitter
> WFT-E1? Or are there 'hidden' improvements?
>
> http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos20d/eos20d_firmware-e...
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Russell wrote:
> Has anyone upgraded from version 1.1.0 to 2.0.0? Any problems?
>
> Also , is it worthwhile unless you plan to use the wireless file transmitter
> WFT-E1? Or are there 'hidden' improvements?
>
> http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos20d/eos20d_firmware-e...
>
>
>

No problems at all.

--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42851BC4.9060100@nospam.net>,
UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>No problems at all.

"It works for me" is okay information, but the question is,
are there any changes other than those specifically mentioned by Canon?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <g9u981tv97l3ji1acf2s023jlb38a4rj7i@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Did the day after it was out. No problems. Why not keep current with
>your firmware?

The doctrine of "if it works, don't fix it."

And the question is not "does the update break anything?"
The question is, are there any changes other than those listed in the
release notes? Another question is, "are there any actual problems
associated with using 1.1.0, and exactly what are those problems?"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:13:51 GMT, fishbowl@conservatory.com (james)
wrote:

>In article <42851BC4.9060100@nospam.net>,
>UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>No problems at all.
>
>"It works for me" is okay information, but the question is,
>are there any changes other than those specifically mentioned by Canon?
>

And if Canon doesn't document them just how are you going to find
them?
*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <m4ca815vd1gr7bc6c7tng184q5boei7feo@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>And if Canon doesn't document them just how are you going to find
>them?

Someone who knows will share what they know?

I mean, there are people out there hacking Canon firmware,
so why would it be far-fetched to know whether someone has
the answer here?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 01:00:35 GMT, fishbowl@conservatory.com (james)
wrote:

>In article <m4ca815vd1gr7bc6c7tng184q5boei7feo@4ax.com>,
>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>And if Canon doesn't document them just how are you going to find
>>them?
>
>Someone who knows will share what they know?
>
>I mean, there are people out there hacking Canon firmware,
>so why would it be far-fetched to know whether someone has
>the answer here?

Nobody seems to be hacking the 20D firmware.

******************************************************************

"The past is foreign country: they do things differently there."

_The Go-Between_
L.P. Hartley
1895 - 1972

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4dfm81p7vo3p8e615q71pq5ndik2okl5sf@4ax.com>, John A.
Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Nobody seems to be hacking the 20D firmware.

What would be the need?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Nobody seems to be hacking the 20D firmware.
>
> What would be the need?

Spot meter. (I'm sure the metering hardware has a center segment a lot
smaller than the partial meter. Sigh. (And please, no stupid comments about
how there's no need for a spot meter from people who don't even know how to
use one.))

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan