Dang no F8 until April, the tape on the 1.4X will likley yellow by then Better re-tape now.

Wes N.

Since you are playing the "make a wish foundation" canon, how about a 7DMk2 now with this AF sytem w/ f8. Woozers that would be awesome.

Chris

erikburd wrote:
I'm willing to guess that there's some shared common code between the EOS cameras, but you need to remember that each camera has different sensors, architectures, hardware, etc. that requires a lot of optimization, development and testing to get right. You can't just "copy and paste" code from one architecture to another. If that were possible, my job would be a lot easier.


EOS and Powershot do share common code. They all use the same operating system, DryOS.
DIGIC is a general purpose CPU (currently ARM AFAIK) plus custom functions in hardware.
Yes, hardware can be different, but the HAL insulates this. How "thick" the insulation is depends on where in the abstraction hierarchy the code in question arises.
Yes, you can copy and paste across one architecture to another. Again it depends on where in the abstraction hierarchy the code in question arises.

We all know that taping some contacts on an extender can allow F8 autofocus on camera that does not support said feature. This is not so reliable as it is beyond the design capability.
One can envision a go-no-go logic decision at the outer level of something like
IF Aperture <= 5.6 THEN
(* allow auto focus (in general). *)
(* select applicable AF points by user and aperture, etc... *)
ELSE
(* don't *)

At the most simplistic level this can change to 8.0, but with possible reliability issues, so not likely the way to go.

In the past EOS 1 series supported F8 AF out of the box. One can infer that in the 1DX dropping this feature supported in EOS 1 for some time, than Canon may have thought F8 not reliable enough(or as reliableas previous) and blocked it out. Maybe marketing said F8 is a not so important feature and HW designed around this spec... and this turned out to be a mistake. Maybe other factors and all of the above. All speculation.

I doubt even Canon would take something out when within HW spec. So maybe we can infer that F8 needs some special algorithm (or tweaks) to work with the current HW to gain a certain level of reliability. From this we might infer that F8 on the 1DX might not be as "good/reliable" as F8 in past implementations even with the new software.

A special F8 subroutine is more than a few lines of code, as my original statement because it would entail extra subroutine at a certain level. Given the 5D AF sensor is likely the same, the 1DX subroutine should be quite applicable. 6 months seems long, in relation to a product development cycle. Maybe 3 months?

Hey, maybe Canon does not abstract things much so it is a lot of work. I've seen it at a major company. A port was a big rewrite. However, I doubt this. Canon is a very conservative company, and changes slowly in most all aspects.

UCDEngBoss wrote:
How about adding intervalometer functions for timelapse work to eliminate the need of a separate controller, wider bracketing with more shots for HDR work, and the 100% zoom to focus point feature for picture review while you are at it Canon. Ohhh and make these available in the 5d2 since I don't own and cannot afford a 5d3 at this time.

Here ya go:

Magic Lantern

Todd Klassy wrote:
Caleb Williams wrote:
Wow. Bitter much? If you can do it some much better, why don't you go work for Canon and fix the problem.


Brilliant response, for a fifth grader. I didn't know this forum was strictly for those who wish to praise Canon.


It can't be for only those who praise Canon. Because every time I see a post from you about Canon, you whine and complain about everything. Change brand to another if you don't like Canon......

April 1st by any chance?

My worry is the usual "the first 90% of the code takes 90% of the time, and the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time" - being in the software business, I figure 6 months really equals 9-10 months. Heck, software? The stupid bridge on the CBX was supposed to be done beginning of this month, they haven't even finished laying the decking to pour the roadbed on yet

I wonder though about the clean HDMI out, would it be that hard to disable the overlays which were put there as an add on in the first place?

Canon seems very desperate lately. The announcements seem to be getting farther and farther away from release.

Great news for 5D3 owners though.

LMAO Yeah Canon is so desperate.

Canon is giving a much requested update to customers for an excellent camera.

I installed the magic lantern alpha 2. the video features are nice, esp the magic zoom for manual focus during video.
the HDMI out is of no use to me, as I am not a pro videographer, but its very nice for people using this primarily as a video camera. once fully implemented, the intervelometer function in ML would be nice.

abqnmusa wrote:
Canon is giving a much requested update to customers for an excellent camera.

Why do you need a press release for a FW update, and one that is happening 6+ months out? Because your desperate to keep customers in the fold. It's not about customer info it's about the growing time gap between announcements and release (see 1DX). Canon seems very defensive lately. They even get a sniff of something that Nikon is doing and out comes the announcement of what they will counter with. No regards to how they will deliver it just get the info out to the minions.

Do you want some cheeze to go with that whine?


I am happy with my 5D III and look forward to the firmware update.

abqnmusa wrote:
Do you want some cheeze to go with that whine?


I am happy with my 5D III and look forward to the firmware update.

+100

kevindar wrote:
I installed the magic lantern alpha 2. the video features are nice, esp the magic zoom for manual focus during video.
the HDMI out is of no use to me, as I am not a pro videographer, but its very nice for people using this primarily as a video camera. once fully implemented, the intervelometer function in ML would be nice.

While it's still pretty expensive, over the last year or two, companies have released some truly workable HDMI field recorders, $350-1000, not more than one pound, small size that record either lossless or lightly compressed Avid or ProRes or both. So it's no longer an often unworkable 5-15 pound brick at $5000 or something.

It will be interesting to see how much of a difference they make. I hope a lot. Hopefully it's more the codec rather than the processing Canon has done to the signal off the sensor that is reducing quality.

Charles Gallo wrote:
My worry is the usual "the first 90% of the code takes 90% of the time, and the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time" - being in the software business, I figure 6 months really equals 9-10 months. Heck, software? The stupid bridge on the CBX was supposed to be done beginning of this month, they haven't even finished laying the decking to pour the roadbed on yet

Keep in mind that they were able to release entire new bodies with complete firmwares on a typically three year product cycle so if these two things take six months then there is no way they could have these cams on less than a ten year product cycle, if not 25 years. Some claim the test versions already had clean HDMI but video department had them lock it out. Granted the latter part is rumor and not proven.

I'm sure the f/8 AF might potentially have taken a lot of work and time to figure out but once it has been figured out on the 1DX there really is no way it can take 6 months.

Again if it is so tricky to do and they are so unsure how can they even give a solid release date? And if they wanted to release it as soon as it was done, whenver that happens, why then lock it into a 6 months super safety margin? It all points to that they probably don't want to release it until April, for whatever reason, but whatver the case, the good thing is that they are doing it.

skibum5 wrote:
months super safety margin? It all points to that they probably don't want to release it until April, for whatever reason, but whatver the case, the good thing is that they are doing it.

One thing just occured to me, the date of April itself may be strategic, April Fools' and all. April 1st might come around and they might be like 'haha, fooled you!'

Access wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
months super safety margin? It all points to that they probably don't want to release it until April, for whatever reason, but whatver the case, the good thing is that they are doing it.

One thing just occured to me, the date of April itself may be strategic, April Fools' and all. April 1st might come around and they might be like 'haha, fooled you!'

I'm not sure how strategic that would be haha. Maybe if they wanted to strategically go OOB.

Aren't there big video shows in April or around then?

snow14 wrote:
Awesome news but why till April canon?




They need time to do proper reliability testing on the pin tape they plan to issue for the f8 AF...

skibum5 wrote:
Access wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
months super safety margin? It all points to that they probably don't want to release it until April, for whatever reason, but whatver the case, the good thing is that they are doing it.

One thing just occured to me, the date of April itself may be strategic, April Fools' and all. April 1st might come around and they might be like 'haha, fooled you!'

I'm not sure how strategic that would be haha. Maybe if they wanted to strategically go OOB.

Aren't there big video shows in April or around then?


yup, to answer myself:
http://www.nabshow.com/2013/

i'm think it's nothing at all to do with programming and all marketing, for whatever reason they want to have it in the brochures for now that only the $$$ cams have clean HDMI out (ignoring ML) and yet don't want to lose people thinking it never will arrive and they want some new product to make a splash at NAB and since 5D4 is not nearly ready this will be their big splash at NAB