Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 540EZ and EOS 300D/Digital Rebel

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 3:34:44 PM

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

I'm about to take delivery of an EOS 300D/Digital rebel, and have an
older 540EZ speedlite flash, with which I've had great results in the
past with film EOS bodies.

Now, from a few things I've read I understand that the 540EZ doesn't
work with the Rebel. Does this mean that it won't fire at all, or just
that some of the automatic functions won't work with the 300D?

If the latter I can live with it, if the former I'll be hitting eBay
shortly :) 

ck


--
April 5, 2005 2:17:47 AM

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

I had a D30 with 540EZ before. It works but only the flash set to manual
mode which means you have to set your flash output to match you need ex.
1/128, 1/64, 1/4...etc. I expected the 300D the same. Also I just bought a
Canon 300D last week from ebay and going to pick it up tomorrow. If you can
wait few more days then I can tell you what happen with them.

CK LUK



"Charles Kooij" <charleskooijonusenet@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1guij9k.854e4r1t9og92N%charleskooijonusenet@mac.com...
> I'm about to take delivery of an EOS 300D/Digital rebel, and have an
> older 540EZ speedlite flash, with which I've had great results in the
> past with film EOS bodies.
>
> Now, from a few things I've read I understand that the 540EZ doesn't
> work with the Rebel. Does this mean that it won't fire at all, or just
> that some of the automatic functions won't work with the 300D?
>
> If the latter I can live with it, if the former I'll be hitting eBay
> shortly :) 
>
> ck
>
>
> --
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 2:17:48 AM

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

PC <jacksonluk@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> I had a D30 with 540EZ before. It works but only the flash set to manual
> mode which means you have to set your flash output to match you need ex.
> 1/128, 1/64, 1/4...etc. I expected the 300D the same. Also I just bought a
> Canon 300D last week from ebay and going to pick it up tomorrow. If you can
> wait few more days then I can tell you what happen with them.
>
Thanks for that. Yes, please let me know how you get on!

ck
Related resources
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 3:17:39 AM

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

Charles Kooij wrote:

> I'm about to take delivery of an EOS 300D/Digital rebel, and have an
> older 540EZ speedlite flash, with which I've had great results in the
> past with film EOS bodies.
>
> Now, from a few things I've read I understand that the 540EZ doesn't
> work with the Rebel. Does this mean that it won't fire at all, or just
> that some of the automatic functions won't work with the 300D?
>
> If the latter I can live with it, if the former I'll be hitting eBay
> shortly :) 


I have a 300D and a 540EZ. The flash does fire, but you have to set
everything manually. The 540EZ is a very good unit, but i ended up buying a
420EX as my everyday do-what-i-mean-flash. I use the 540EZ only when i have
the time to do flash exposure series or when i need the 540's strobe.





--
Ernst-Udo Wallenborn
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 2:35:41 PM

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

Ernst-Udo Wallenborn <ernst-udo.wallenborn@freenet.de> wrote:

> Charles Kooij wrote:
>
> > I'm about to take delivery of an EOS 300D/Digital rebel, and have an
> > older 540EZ speedlite flash, with which I've had great results in the
> > past with film EOS bodies.
> >
> > Now, from a few things I've read I understand that the 540EZ doesn't
> > work with the Rebel. Does this mean that it won't fire at all, or just
> > that some of the automatic functions won't work with the 300D?
> >
> > If the latter I can live with it, if the former I'll be hitting eBay
> > shortly :) 
>
>
> I have a 300D and a 540EZ. The flash does fire, but you have to set
> everything manually. The 540EZ is a very good unit, but i ended up buying a
> 420EX as my everyday do-what-i-mean-flash. I use the 540EZ only when i have
> the time to do flash exposure series or when i need the 540's strobe.

Hmmm. I don't think that the wife is going to let me have two flash
units. Looks like I'll be making my trip to eBay sooner rather than
later...

Thanks for the information Ernst.

ck


--
April 6, 2005 2:00:26 AM

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

Charles,

The 540EZ works with my 300D OK only set to manual mode,
the bonus is the flash can auto zooming as well but not with my D30 before!

CKLUK

"Charles Kooij" <charleskooijonusenet@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1gukbcr.1amw8kj1b3b8ffN%charleskooijonusenet@mac.com...
> Ernst-Udo Wallenborn <ernst-udo.wallenborn@freenet.de> wrote:
>
>> Charles Kooij wrote:
>>
>> > I'm about to take delivery of an EOS 300D/Digital rebel, and have an
>> > older 540EZ speedlite flash, with which I've had great results in the
>> > past with film EOS bodies.
>> >
>> > Now, from a few things I've read I understand that the 540EZ doesn't
>> > work with the Rebel. Does this mean that it won't fire at all, or just
>> > that some of the automatic functions won't work with the 300D?
>> >
>> > If the latter I can live with it, if the former I'll be hitting eBay
>> > shortly :) 
>>
>>
>> I have a 300D and a 540EZ. The flash does fire, but you have to set
>> everything manually. The 540EZ is a very good unit, but i ended up buying
>> a
>> 420EX as my everyday do-what-i-mean-flash. I use the 540EZ only when i
>> have
>> the time to do flash exposure series or when i need the 540's strobe.
>
> Hmmm. I don't think that the wife is going to let me have two flash
> units. Looks like I'll be making my trip to eBay sooner rather than
> later...
>
> Thanks for the information Ernst.
>
> ck
>
>
> --
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 5:53:03 AM

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

"Charles Kooij" <charleskooijonusenet@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1guij9k.854e4r1t9og92N%charleskooijonusenet@mac.com...
> I'm about to take delivery of an EOS 300D/Digital rebel, and have an
> older 540EZ speedlite flash, with which I've had great results in the
> past with film EOS bodies.
>
> Now, from a few things I've read I understand that the 540EZ doesn't
> work with the Rebel. Does this mean that it won't fire at all, or just
> that some of the automatic functions won't work with the 300D?
>
> If the latter I can live with it, if the former I'll be hitting eBay
> shortly :) 
>
> ck

I use a 420ex on my rebel and love it. If you don't mind flashing your
firmware you will also get FEC with the 420ex, (among other things like
mirror lockup and raw in sports mode) otherwize you will want to get the new
580ex speedlite.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 7:46:05 AM

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

"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
news:3ul5e.924151$6l.660608@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Charles Kooij" <charleskooijonusenet@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1guij9k.854e4r1t9og92N%charleskooijonusenet@mac.com...
> > I'm about to take delivery of an EOS 300D/Digital rebel, and have an
> > older 540EZ speedlite flash, with which I've had great results in the
> > past with film EOS bodies.
> >
> > Now, from a few things I've read I understand that the 540EZ doesn't
> > work with the Rebel. Does this mean that it won't fire at all, or just
> > that some of the automatic functions won't work with the 300D?
> >
> > If the latter I can live with it, if the former I'll be hitting eBay
> > shortly :) 
> >
> > ck
>
> I use a 420ex on my rebel and love it. If you don't mind flashing your
> firmware you will also get FEC with the 420ex, (among other things like
> mirror lockup and raw in sports mode) otherwize you will want to get the
new
> 580ex speedlite.

And FEC is EXTREMELY useful, if you do not want to flash I would spend the
extra money and get the 580.
--
www.harryphotos.com
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:33:24 AM

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

Dirty Harry <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:

> "Charles Kooij" <charleskooijonusenet@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1guij9k.854e4r1t9og92N%charleskooijonusenet@mac.com...
> > I'm about to take delivery of an EOS 300D/Digital rebel, and have an
> > older 540EZ speedlite flash, with which I've had great results in the
> > past with film EOS bodies.
> >
> > Now, from a few things I've read I understand that the 540EZ doesn't
> > work with the Rebel. Does this mean that it won't fire at all, or just
> > that some of the automatic functions won't work with the 300D?
> >
> > If the latter I can live with it, if the former I'll be hitting eBay
> > shortly :) 
> >
> > ck
>
> I use a 420ex on my rebel and love it. If you don't mind flashing your
> firmware you will also get FEC with the 420ex, (among other things like
> mirror lockup and raw in sports mode) otherwize you will want to get the new
> 580ex speedlite.


I am definitely intending to flash the firmware. You're talking about
the Russian firmware from Satinfo, yes?

Have there been any problems reported with it? I'd hate to knacker my
new camera!

Also, are you saying that my 540EZ will work better with the camera once
I've got the hacked firmware installed?

ck

--
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:33:25 AM

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

Charles Kooij wrote:

> I am definitely intending to flash the firmware. You're talking about
> the Russian firmware from Satinfo, yes?
>
> Have there been any problems reported with it? I'd hate to knacker my
> new camera!
>
> Also, are you saying that my 540EZ will work better with the camera once
> I've got the hacked firmware installed?

Just hope that you never need a warranty repair with the hacked firmware
installed. Some failures may prevent you from reloading factory firmware.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 9, 2005 1:33:26 AM

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

In article <d36tl8$1qc$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca
says...
> Just hope that you never need a warranty repair with the hacked firmware
> installed. Some failures may prevent you from reloading factory firmware.
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
>
>

Canon USA simply reverted the firmware to the factory standard on my brother-
in-laws DRebel when he sent it in for waranty work (rattling noise in
camera).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:44:33 AM

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

"Charles Kooij" <charleskooijonusenet@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1guqq4t.xmvmr79vtgwmN%charleskooijonusenet@mac.com...
> Dirty Harry <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Charles Kooij" <charleskooijonusenet@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:1guij9k.854e4r1t9og92N%charleskooijonusenet@mac.com...
> > > I'm about to take delivery of an EOS 300D/Digital rebel, and have an
> > > older 540EZ speedlite flash, with which I've had great results in the
> > > past with film EOS bodies.
> > >
> > > Now, from a few things I've read I understand that the 540EZ doesn't
> > > work with the Rebel. Does this mean that it won't fire at all, or just
> > > that some of the automatic functions won't work with the 300D?
> > >
> > > If the latter I can live with it, if the former I'll be hitting eBay
> > > shortly :) 
> > >
> > > ck
> >
> > I use a 420ex on my rebel and love it. If you don't mind flashing your
> > firmware you will also get FEC with the 420ex, (among other things like
> > mirror lockup and raw in sports mode) otherwize you will want to get the
new
> > 580ex speedlite.
>
>
> I am definitely intending to flash the firmware. You're talking about
> the Russian firmware from Satinfo, yes?
>
> Have there been any problems reported with it? I'd hate to knacker my
> new camera!
>
> Also, are you saying that my 540EZ will work better with the camera once
> I've got the hacked firmware installed?
>
> ck

I have the Russian firmware but I'm going to install the Dutch one right
away so I can get RAW in sports mode. The hacked firmware has a lot of
great features, the main ones I like are:
Setting the embeded jpeg size (I set mine to minimum and can get 99 RAW
images on a 512 card)
Mirror Lockup
FEC
you can find out more here
http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebe... I have a
friend that has the Undutchables and it works great for him. I've had the
russian stuff on for about 4000 pictures or a few months....
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:51:44 PM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Charles Kooij wrote:
>
> > I am definitely intending to flash the firmware. You're talking about
> > the Russian firmware from Satinfo, yes?
> >
> > Have there been any problems reported with it? I'd hate to knacker my
> > new camera!
> >
> > Also, are you saying that my 540EZ will work better with the camera once
> > I've got the hacked firmware installed?
>
> Just hope that you never need a warranty repair with the hacked firmware
> installed. Some failures may prevent you from reloading factory firmware.

Yes, this is one of the things that worries me. Hmmm. I'm weighing up
the risks versus missing out on some of the rather attractive features,
such as RAW in sports mode.

Damn. Choices choices :) 

ck
--
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:51:45 PM

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

Dirty Harry <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:

> "Charles Kooij" <charleskooijonusenet@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1guqq4t.xmvmr79vtgwmN%charleskooijonusenet@mac.com...

<Snip>

> > I am definitely intending to flash the firmware. You're talking about
> > the Russian firmware from Satinfo, yes?
> >

<snip>

> I have the Russian firmware but I'm going to install the Dutch one right
> away so I can get RAW in sports mode. The hacked firmware has a lot of
> great features, the main ones I like are:
> Setting the embeded jpeg size (I set mine to minimum and can get 99 RAW
> images on a 512 card)
> Mirror Lockup
> FEC
> you can find out more here
> http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebe... I have a
> friend that has the Undutchables and it works great for him. I've had the
> russian stuff on for about 4000 pictures or a few months....

Thanks for that. The dutch firmware sounds good - I'd *love* to be able
to shoot RAW in in sports mode. And the mirror lockup would be just as
good.

Have you had any problems with the altered firmware?


--
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:51:45 PM

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

Todd H. <t@toddh.net> wrote:

> charleskooijonusenet@mac.com (Charles Kooij) writes:
>
> > I'm about to take delivery of an EOS 300D/Digital rebel, and have an
> > older 540EZ speedlite flash, with which I've had great results in the
> > past with film EOS bodies.
>
>
> Hi Chrles,
>
> Me too. My 540EZ and my Elan were gorgeous and consistent.

Weren't they just! I loved the combination. Like you said - the
consistency was extremely impressive, and it was always fun mucking
around with the manual settings. In fact, if it weren't for the
convenience and flexibility of digital SLRs, and the rather dubious
quality of many commercial processing labs I'd probably still be using
the setup for at least half the photographs I take.

>
> Alas, the EZ series of speedlights doesn't work full dedicated with
> any current Canon's, which use the EX series of flashes. I leaned
> this disappointment first when I tried my 540EZ on my Canon G2.
> I was buying a 550 EX in no time. :-\
>
> However, it does still kinda work--the EZ flash atop your new digital
> rebel will just dump the full flash out by default, which in general
> will leave you quite overexposed. As others have stated, manual mode
> on the flash can get you where you want to go. Some would say "what's
> the point really... why have a camera capable of wonderful through the
> lens flash metering off the sensor and then use it with a flash that
> requires manual setting?" :-\ However, if your use is limited enough,
> you can make it work if manual mode is acceptable to ya.

Yeah, I guess it will be OK in a studio setting. Yay! An excuse to set
up a studio! :) 

>
> Now, here's what really blows--even if you bought an EX flash, you'd
> not enjoy nearly as consistent flash exposures as we're used to from
> the 540EZ and your film EOS if your experience mimicks mine. I remain
> VERY disappointed with the flash results from my Rebel and the 550EX--
> inconsistent to say the least (see the thread I just started inquiring
> about that).

Hmmm. Now, what you're saying is *exactly* what my local camera dealer
told me. That is a bit of a worry, because over here the 55EX is hardly
cheap, especially if it doesn't perform to the level that I'm hoping
for...

<snip>
>
> Hopefully I can find out what's causing the issues.

I'll keep an eye on your thread. Thanks for the post Todd, much
appreciated.

ck

--
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 3:30:33 PM

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

Larry wrote:

> In article <d36tl8$1qc$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca says...
>
>> Just hope that you never need a warranty repair with the hacked
>> firmware installed. Some failures may prevent you from reloading
>> factory firmware.
>>
>>
>
> Canon USA simply reverted the firmware to the factory standard on my
> brother- in-laws DRebel when he sent it in for waranty work (rattling
> noise in camera).

Kudos for Canon then. I would have expected them to use it as
an excuse to avoid the repair on the excuse that hacked firmware may
have caused the damage. (Could also be they simply loaded the latest
firmware w/o even checking the in camera load).


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 10:00:15 PM

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

"Charles Kooij" <charleskooijonusenet@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1gurq9v.1wyymysbe1b0gN%charleskooijonusenet@mac.com...
> Dirty Harry <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Charles Kooij" <charleskooijonusenet@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:1guqq4t.xmvmr79vtgwmN%charleskooijonusenet@mac.com...
>
> <Snip>
>
> > > I am definitely intending to flash the firmware. You're talking about
> > > the Russian firmware from Satinfo, yes?
> > >
>
> <snip>
>
> > I have the Russian firmware but I'm going to install the Dutch one right
> > away so I can get RAW in sports mode. The hacked firmware has a lot of
> > great features, the main ones I like are:
> > Setting the embeded jpeg size (I set mine to minimum and can get 99 RAW
> > images on a 512 card)
> > Mirror Lockup
> > FEC
> > you can find out more here
> > http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebe... I
have a
> > friend that has the Undutchables and it works great for him. I've had
the
> > russian stuff on for about 4000 pictures or a few months....
>
> Thanks for that. The dutch firmware sounds good - I'd *love* to be able
> to shoot RAW in in sports mode. And the mirror lockup would be just as
> good.
>
> Have you had any problems with the altered firmware?

Not a one :-)
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:42:11 AM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote
> Just hope that you never need a warranty repair with the hacked firmware
> installed.

Another urban legend.

Do you have any first hand knowledge of anyone being denied a warranty claim
by Canon because the firmware was hacked? I have read a number of posts by
people who have had their warranties honored in spite of hacked firmware. I
have yet to read a post from someone who had their claim denied. Human
nature being what it is, I would think that if, in fact, Canon had denied
claims because of the hack there would be plenty of ongoing discussion about
it.

>Some failures may prevent you from reloading factory firmware.

Indeed they will.

Please don't bottom post.
Please don't perpetuate urban legends.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:12:21 PM

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

jfitz wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote
>
>>Just hope that you never need a warranty repair with the hacked firmware
>>installed.
>
>
> Another urban legend.
>
> Do you have any first hand knowledge of anyone being denied a warranty claim


I don't have first hand knowledge of it, but on the other hand, it would
be a legitimate grounds for refusal to honor the warranty if it did
occur. Firmware changes can be responsible for hardware damage. If
it's Canon's fault, that's one thing; if it's the fault of hacked s/w,
that's another thing and Canon rightly should not be responsible for it.
I would bet that most firmware hacks do not damage anything, but what
is unknown is always unknown until the case pops up.

I have nothing against hacking s/w for the purposes of improving camera
functionality or performance; however loading such s/w onto an
electromechanical device like a DSLR does take some confidence in the
source and an ability to take the risk.

>
>
>>Some failures may prevent you from reloading factory firmware.
>
>
> Indeed they will.
>
> Please don't bottom post.

Bottom posting is correct usenet ettiquette.

> Please don't perpetuate urban legends.

Legend? I was pointing out a risk. That you don't know the difference
is your problem.

Cheers,
Alan.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:47:49 PM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca>
> jfitz wrote:
>> Do you have any first hand knowledge of anyone being denied a warranty
>> claim
>
>
> I don't have first hand knowledge of it, but on the other hand, it would
> be a legitimate grounds for refusal to honor the warranty if it did occur.
> Firmware changes can be responsible for hardware damage. If it's Canon's
> fault, that's one thing; if it's the fault of hacked s/w, that's another
> thing and Canon rightly should not be responsible for it. I would bet that
> most firmware hacks do not damage anything, but what is unknown is always
> unknown until the case pops up.

So your allegation was based on possibility, not fact.

> Bottom posting is correct usenet ettiquette.

Nope, never has been. Interleaved posting, with deletion of text not
germane to the point being made, is and always has been proper netiquette.

>> Please don't perpetuate urban legends.
>
> Legend? I was pointing out a risk. That you don't know the difference is
> your problem.

Your prior post was a definitive statement, perpetuating an internet legend.
There is a world of difference between pointing out a possibility of risk as
you, backtracking, did now and the implication made in your prior post.
Perhaps you should worry less about others posting styles and devote more of
your attention to the accuracy of the content of your posts.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:56:23 PM

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

jfitz wrote:

> So your allegation was based on possibility, not fact.

Yes. And there's nothing wrong with that. I pointed out a risk.

>>Legend? I was pointing out a risk. That you don't know the difference is
>>your problem.
>
>
> Your prior post was a definitive statement, perpetuating an internet legend.
> There is a world of difference between pointing out a possibility of risk as
> you, backtracking, did now and the implication made in your prior post.
> Perhaps you should worry less about others posting styles and devote more of
> your attention to the accuracy of the content of your posts.

I did state it firmly yes, and like you I could use weasel language to
be sure that I couldn't be challenged, but I didn't, so sue me.

It remains my opinion that firmware hacking is risky, esp. in an under
warranty camera as it lets the manufacturer off the hook for the
warranty claim. Is that better?

Hmm. Maybe I'll write a carefully worded letter to Canon to warn them
about all this rogue firmware out there that *potentially* *may* be
causing other failures. Then I can be right. And that's important, right?

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 5:16:38 PM

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

In article <1gurq9v.1wyymysbe1b0gN%charleskooijonusenet@mac.com>,
charleskooijonusenet@mac.com (Charles Kooij) wrote:

> Thanks for that. The dutch firmware sounds good - I'd *love* to be able
> to shoot RAW in in sports mode. And the mirror lockup would be just as
> good.
>
> Have you had any problems with the altered firmware?
Installed fine on my 300D - very happy with the new functionality and
nothing existing seems to have broken. I still can't take decent photos
though - must be the camera ;-)

Iain
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:33:08 PM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote
> It remains my opinion that firmware hacking is risky, esp. in an under
> warranty camera as it lets the manufacturer off the hook for the warranty
> claim. Is that better?

Nicely said.

I consider it risky as well, primarily because of the possibility of camera
firmware malfunction. The Canon 300D hacks have just too many options that
don't work at all or only work in certain circumstances for my taste. The
mirror lockup function and FEC seem to be the two major reasons why 300D
owners install the hacks. It is my gut feeling that frequent use of the
hack's mirror lockup option may well put stress on the mirror assembly over
and above that allowed for by Canon's designers so some hack users may be
unpleasantly surprised a few years down the road.

>Maybe I'll write a carefully worded letter to Canon to warn them about all
>this rogue firmware out there that *potentially* *may* be causing other
>failures.

I very much doubt if it will be news to them.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:56:10 PM

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

"jfitz" <jfitz@bigfoot.com> writes:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote
> > It remains my opinion that firmware hacking is risky, esp. in an under
> > warranty camera as it lets the manufacturer off the hook for the warranty
> > claim. Is that better?
>
> Nicely said.
>
> I consider it risky as well, primarily because of the possibility of camera
> firmware malfunction. The Canon 300D hacks have just too many options that
> don't work at all or only work in certain circumstances for my taste. The
> mirror lockup function and FEC seem to be the two major reasons why 300D
> owners install the hacks.


Curious, do any of the hacks out there do anything with flash
metering?

I haven't installed any of the hacks myself since I have a flash that
allows me to dial in FEC on it, and mirror lockup is not something I
ever have used in the past 10 years.

But I'd jump if I could switch to center weighted averaging metering
for flash exposure ...


--
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
!