dhphoto wrote:
KKFung wrote:
I haven't check the camera after the uopdate to 2.0.3 but I just reload the 1.2.4 (last version) back to make safe

The new version works perfectly apart from that one small issue, don't let people scare you with internet rumours

Thanks dhphoto! I seldom use the video if the new version only update on the video part and no change on the still part, no problem to me of course.

Me_XMan wrote:
Is it possible to reload the older firmware?

Sal Baker wrote:
The new firmware update has already been pulled due to bugs. Many now have dead cameras and have to send them back to Canon for previous FW install. Canon says new updated version of the 5DII FW will be posted soon.




It's just not necessary, just because a couple of people have posted 'my camera is dead' on dpreview doesn't make it true.

The firmware is fine apart from that one issue which seems to have happened because now the software is out there the vastly bigger user-base has spotted something odd. The rest of the update works just as it should, I've been shooting with it all day and yesterday

Future Man wrote:
Maybe I'm just imagining it, who knows, but I'm liking the 24p look. Played around with it a little yesterday and it's hard to pin-point, but I'd say it adds a unique look to the footage.

I must admit I have a hard time telling the difference, not that I'm saying it isn't there

I've heard reports of cameras bursting into flames and even exploding after this firmware was installed - or was it the owners I'm not sure? after the near hysterical tension that was built up prior to it's release I think it was the latter

dhphoto wrote:
Me_XMan wrote:
Is it possible to reload the older firmware?

Sal Baker wrote:
The new firmware update has already been pulled due to bugs. Many now have dead cameras and have to send them back to Canon for previous FW install. Canon says new updated version of the 5DII FW will be posted soon.


It's just not necessary, just because a couple of people have posted 'my camera is dead' on dpreview doesn't make it true.


I would rather have any possible info like that and make my own decision. This being the Internet, who can you trust? There have been many "bugs" that have been reported first on other sites that turned out to be true.

Canon pulled this firmware upgrade because of audio problems in the C1, C2 and C3 settings when configured for "manual" for audio. For those who already have loaded the 2.0.3 update, you need to set audio to "auto" if using the C settings. A fix is to be posted.

lets take a vote then

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/879235

The note at the Canon site is as follows:
Recently we have discovered a malfunction that occurs with Firmware Version 2.0.3, in which the manual recording levels for C1/C2/C3 are changed and the camera becomes unable to record audio if the power is turned off (or if Auto power off takes effect) after registering "Sound Recording: Manual" in the camera user settings.
We apologize very sincerely for the inconvenience, but we are going to stop making this firmware available for download. For customers who have already updated to the new firmware, when using the camera with the mode dial set to C1/C2/C3, please either set the sound recording settings to Auto.
We are currently preparing firmware that will correct this malfunction. As soon as those preparations have been completed, we will let you know on this Web site. In the meantime, we apologize for the inconvenience this represents, but please wait until the fixed firmware is ready.

It's really easy to "brick" a device during a firmware update...especially if you don't follow the instructions. I wouldn't be surprised if the "my camera is dead" reports are the result of improper firmware updating instead of the firmware itself.

Ver 1.2.4

http://rapidshare.com/files/365099378/eos5d2124.exe

Chris Tylko wrote:
It's really easy to "brick" a device during a firmware update...especially if you don't follow the instructions. I wouldn't be surprised if the "my camera is dead" reports are the result of improper firmware updating instead of the firmware itself.

True. Canon warns not to press any buttons on the camera during the update. But dodgy downloads and bitrot could also bork a firmware update. My updates went smoothly and my cameras work fine.

It could also be that when the Canon servers were timing out on the first day, some people might have ended up with a corrupted file which the camera didn't like at all.

Sal Baker wrote:
It could also be that when the Canon servers were timing out on the first day, some people might have ended up with a corrupted file which the camera didn't like at all.

Mine was corrupted, it just wouldn't expand at all, I couldn't have used it to upgrade even if I'd wanted to.

I got the .fir file from a kind soul here who posted it up

dhphoto wrote:
Sal Baker wrote:
It could also be that when the Canon servers were timing out on the first day, some people might have ended up with a corrupted file which the camera didn't like at all.

Mine was corrupted, it just wouldn't expand at all, I couldn't have used it to upgrade even if I'd wanted to.

I got the .fir file from a kind soul here who posted it up

You are braver than me. I would never install firmware that I did not download from Canon myself.

jerrykur wrote:


You are braver than me. I would never install firmware that I did not download from Canon myself.



I agree, I didn't do it until a few guys here had said it was ok, then I did a virus and malware check as well. But it's fine, unless it's secretly transmitting my bank details as we speak...

dhphoto wrote:

But it's fine, unless it's secretly transmitting my bank details as we speak...

What's with all of those Victoria's Secret charges??

J Andersen wrote:
Future Man wrote:
Maybe I'm just imagining it, who knows, but I'm liking the 24p look. Played around with it a little yesterday and it's hard to pin-point, but I'd say it adds a unique look to the footage.

I must admit I have a hard time telling the difference, not that I'm saying it isn't there

do some panning

and notice how much worse it looks in 24p

Sal Baker wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
This wiki article explains the weird 29.97 value for NTSC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

i get that, i just didn't get the weird value for 24fps since the movie standard i believe is 24.000000000000fps


24fps film needs telecine or conversions (pulldowns etc.) when transferred to NTSC video. 23.976 is ready to go without conversion. When broadcast cameras shoot 24p, they're actually shooting 23.976.

Sal

that assumes everyone is aiming for direct TV video broadcasting

if someone simply wants to mesh it in with their 24fps film footage or make 24p blu-rays for display on 24Hz input TV sets without pulldown etc. or show their video on their 24Hz input set then why 23.976? For blu-rays even if you send it to a set that doesn't handle 24Hz inputs you still need to store it at 24.000fps on the blu-ray. I think most pre-builts for video editors have 24p as 24.000 too.

How many plan to directly broadcast 24fps from a 5D2 on TV?

Listen, I certainly could be wrong but it seems like 24.000 would be the more sensible staring point. Unless there really are so many who would want to straight use 24p footage on NTSC/ATSC broadcasting (and straight 23.976 to 24.00 for the other stuff is much easier than 24.00 to 23.976 for broadcasting).

Sal Baker wrote:
The new firmware update has already been pulled due to bugs. Many now have dead cameras and have to send them back to Canon for previous FW install. Canon says new updated version of the 5DII FW will be posted soon.



i think that is a bit dramatic

they said it was pulled for the C1-C3 audio issue not for bricking cameras

if any got bricked, the user probably interrupted the process midway or something, is my guess

Pixel Perfect wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
This wiki article explains the weird 29.97 value for NTSC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

i get that, i just didn't get the weird value for 24fps since the movie standard i believe is 24.000000000000fps


In the 1950's when NTSC went colour they had to reduce the frame rate by the factor 1000/1001 to avoid interference between chroma and sound channels, this is why the NTSC is now 29.97 and when you do 3:2 pulldown you then end up with 23.97. These are actually the industry standards, not 24 and 30.

yeah but you are talking outdated TV broadcasting standards those are neither theatrical, nor blu-ray, nor standard 24Hz monitor/hdtv standards no?