The firmware isn't available just yet. Canon says mid-March.
This is mostly a video frame rate and video features update.
The Canon e-mail notice:
"This is a courtesy e-mail to inform you that firmware upgrade 2.0.3 for the EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera will be coming in March of 2010. 2.0.3 meets the demands of both professional movie producers and aspiring filmmakers alike by adding 24p video acquisition and changing the 30p video frame rate to 29.97 to comply with TV production standards. In addition, audio capability is enhanced for professional use, adding manual audio level control, and increasing the audio sampling frequency to 48KHz from 44.1KHz."
The firmware isn't available just yet. Canon says mid-March.
This is mostly a video frame rate and video features update.
The Canon e-mail notice:
"This is a courtesy e-mail to inform you that firmware upgrade 2.0.3 for the EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera will be coming in March of 2010. 2.0.3 meets the demands of both professional movie producers and aspiring filmmakers alike by adding 24p video acquisition and changing the 30p video frame rate to 29.97 to comply with TV production standards. In addition, audio capability is enhanced for professional use, adding manual audio level control, and increasing the audio sampling frequency to 48KHz from 44.1KHz."
One can always hope that Canon stuffs other stuff in these firmware updates that they don't tell anyone about.
Which thought causes me to wonder, "Hmmmm .... I wonder if there's anyone who reverse engineers these updates, comparing them to determine what's changed/fixed/etc?" I just did a quick google search and I'm either not using the right search terms or there's nothing out there. Anyone know of something along these lines - I figure there's got to be someone that has done this.
One can always hope that Canon stuffs other stuff in these firmware updates that they don't tell anyone about.
Which thought causes me to wonder, "Hmmmm .... I wonder if there's anyone who reverse engineers these updates, comparing them to determine what's changed/fixed/etc?" I just did a quick google search and I'm either not using the right search terms or there's nothing out there. Anyone know of something along these lines - I figure there's got to be someone that has done this.
CHDK was a project that developed out of a capability that Canon, and a very few other cameras, could be operated in a rather "diagnostic" mode by temporarily loading software (similar to firmware) as an overlay onto the in-camera software and firmware.
The system was nice in that if anything bad happened, you just turned off the camera and removed the card containing the software, and then turned on the camera again with no ill effects. The software was limited to single session, but repeatable, usage and did not affect the firmware of the camera directly.
I believe that Canon has removed the capability from the latest cameras and I do think that with the Digic IV based cameras the only method for expansion is through a firmware upgrade.
If firmware is done poorly it can completely disable a camera and void any warranty, resulting in very expensive potential repairs or even discarding the camera. The risk from botched firmware is probably more than many folks want to incur.
It's possible to have someone redesign firmware to add functionality but it is not trivial or easy.
BTW, you cannot blame Canon for disabling the capability for software overlays and making firmware development difficult. Imagine the first "camera virus" of destructive/malicious code with a timed delay to lull tens of thousands into installing the stuff. Then imagine how people would blame Canon for "allowing" it to happen. Such is our world I'm afraid.
I was referring to the tendency of software geeks (and I R one and proud of it) to take the object code (the firmware payload) and expand and translate it. Take that result and compare it to that of another upgrade to determine the differences .... just to see what Canon (or any other manufacturer) might be slipping under the radar. The payload isn't really that large and, I believe, it would not be an immpossible task to write a program that could identify "candidate differences" in the code that might be differences in logic. It would require a good understanding of coding methods employed by the Canon engineers (inspection of the first payload would reveal much of that), a good understanding of the Digic chip instruction set (again, something that could be revealed with appropriate analysis of the firmware payload), and a reasonable understanding of the rest of the camera hardware.
BTW - none of this would be done with a camera. In fact, the target camera need not even be available. This would all be done on a computer.
BTW #2 - If all the above could be accomplished by an individual (or group of individuals), it might be possible to write and distribute a bogus firmware upgrade to create the "camera virus" situation to which you refer - depending on what sorts of security/recognition logic is included in the camera and/or the firmware upgrade software. I can conceptualize the process, but it's far beyond my capability, talent, and resources to even get started on this. However, from a strictly academic standpoint, I can see and understand the intellectual challenge this would provide. I don't see where it would be a viable target though - there not much that such individuals could offer in their firmware that would entice a reasonably cautious camera ownwer to download and install this hypothetical bogus firmware.
ETA - Now that this cat is out of the bag (yeah, like I'm the first person to think of this), remember .... Only download and install firmware from a trusted source .... from the site of your hardware manufacturer!!!
Of course the updates are likely to be digitally signed for authenticity and/or encrypted to guard against reverse-engineering.
That strikes me as unlikely on both counts. These are small devices with limited memory and processing power, and I don't know of any history of malicious firmware that would have led to a demand for digital signing or encryption.
I was referring to the tendency of software geeks (and I R one and proud of it) to take the object code (the firmware payload) and expand and translate it. Take that result and compare it to that of another upgrade to determine the differences .... just to see what Canon (or any other manufacturer) might be slipping under the radar. The payload isn't really that large and, I believe, it would not be an impossible task to write a program that could identify "candidate differences" in the code that might be differences in logic.
Not terribly difficult... not that I'm volunteering, you understand. All you really need is a disassembler for Digic code, and then you run the disassembly through an ordinary text comparison program to see what's different from the last version.
It would require ... a good understanding of the Digic chip instruction set (again, something that could be revealed with appropriate analysis of the firmware payload), and a reasonable understanding of the rest of the camera hardware.
The existence of the free, independently-developed Magic Lantern firmware enhancement suggests that the information needed for this is already available.
BTW #2 - If all the above could be accomplished by an individual (or group of individuals), it might be possible to write and distribute a bogus firmware upgrade to create the "camera virus" situation to which you refer - depending on what sorts of security/recognition logic is included in the camera and/or the firmware upgrade software. ... I don't see where it would be a viable target though - there not much that such individuals could offer in their firmware that would entice a reasonably cautious camera owner to download and install this hypothetical bogus firmware.
I don't see it as much of a danger precisely because the firmware update process requires explicit user approval, so you can't sneak your virus in without the user being aware that something unusual is happening (as opposed to personal computers, which are stupid enough to boot without question from any disk that happens to be in a floppy or CD drive, or even a USB thumb drive). Even on PCs, nobody bothers with writing boot-sector viruses anymore, because a virus can spread much faster by exploiting holes in network security. So your camera is probably safe until it becomes a wireless Ethernet device... wait a minute... what was that about WiFi cards in the CF slot?
That strikes me as unlikely on both counts. These are small devices with limited memory and processing power, and I don't know of any history of malicious firmware that would have led to a demand for digital signing or encryption.
Oh gosh, not at all. The amount of processor and memory resources necessary to check a digital signature and decrypt a firmware update would be on the order of what it takes to create a single JPG in camera. In fact, a JPG could be viewed as a cryptographic representation of a RAW image. And the data sizes are comparable as well. Regardless, the speed doesn't matter because the operation would be done only once when you install the update. Remember, the first cryptographic machines were mechanical.
I think your subsequent comment that 3rd party companies have produced firmware updates for Canon cameras is more telling.
I'll admit, I downloaded the Magic Lantern stuff, but I haven't tried to install it. (The "firmware" is just for the Canon 5D MKII at the moment.) Since there is only one version and I'm not sure it's been really scrutinized, I cannot honestly recommend it.
If you should look at their project and want to try it yourself make sure that you know it is still classed as "Beta" stage and not completely stable. The current build is from a fairly old version of the Canon firmware. There is also a very explicit disclaimer on the site:
"
***************************************************
* *
* THIS IS DANGEROUS AND MIGHT DAMAGE YOUR CAMERA. *
* NO WARRANTIES. NO GUARANTEES. DO NOT TAUNT. *
* IF IT BREAKS, YOU GET TO KEEP BOTH PIECES. *
* *
* THERE IS NO SUPPORT. *
* USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. *
* *
***************************************************
Comments
Well... that figures! I JUST updated the firmware on my MarkII four days ago!! Oh well.. back to popping the CF in the 'puter and doin it again!
Cheers and thanks for the alert!
Bodies: Canon- 5D Mark II, 7D, 50D, SD780IS, Sony DSC F828, DSC F717,
Lenses: Canon EF16-35/f2.8L, EF24-105/f4L, EF100-400L, EF 50mm/1.8 II, EF100/2,8L, EF85/1.8 USM, MP-E65/2.8 1-5X, 15mm Fisheye, 70-200/f2.8L II
Lighting: Canon 580EXII, 430EXII, MT-24EX, MR-14EX, Sony Hi Power, YinYan BY-180B Studio Strobes (3), Coco Ring Flash Adapter.
Stability:Manfrotto 055CXPRO3, 322RC2, 498RC2, 454 Macro Slider, 175F-1 Clamps
Video: Canon XHA1, HV-20 (2), HV-30
This is mostly a video frame rate and video features update.
The Canon e-mail notice:
"This is a courtesy e-mail to inform you that firmware upgrade 2.0.3 for the EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera will be coming in March of 2010. 2.0.3 meets the demands of both professional movie producers and aspiring filmmakers alike by adding 24p video acquisition and changing the 30p video frame rate to 29.97 to comply with TV production standards. In addition, audio capability is enhanced for professional use, adding manual audio level control, and increasing the audio sampling frequency to 48KHz from 44.1KHz."
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
gspep.smugmug.com & steendorp.smugmug.com
FB: www.facebook.com/peter.perdaen - Youtube: www.youtube.com/user/1150GSPEP/videos
Which thought causes me to wonder, "Hmmmm .... I wonder if there's anyone who reverse engineers these updates, comparing them to determine what's changed/fixed/etc?" I just did a quick google search and I'm either not using the right search terms or there's nothing out there. Anyone know of something along these lines - I figure there's got to be someone that has done this.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
CHDK was a project that developed out of a capability that Canon, and a very few other cameras, could be operated in a rather "diagnostic" mode by temporarily loading software (similar to firmware) as an overlay onto the in-camera software and firmware.
The system was nice in that if anything bad happened, you just turned off the camera and removed the card containing the software, and then turned on the camera again with no ill effects. The software was limited to single session, but repeatable, usage and did not affect the firmware of the camera directly.
I believe that Canon has removed the capability from the latest cameras and I do think that with the Digic IV based cameras the only method for expansion is through a firmware upgrade.
If firmware is done poorly it can completely disable a camera and void any warranty, resulting in very expensive potential repairs or even discarding the camera. The risk from botched firmware is probably more than many folks want to incur.
It's possible to have someone redesign firmware to add functionality but it is not trivial or easy.
BTW, you cannot blame Canon for disabling the capability for software overlays and making firmware development difficult. Imagine the first "camera virus" of destructive/malicious code with a timed delay to lull tens of thousands into installing the stuff. Then imagine how people would blame Canon for "allowing" it to happen. Such is our world I'm afraid.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I was referring to the tendency of software geeks (and I R one and proud of it) to take the object code (the firmware payload) and expand and translate it. Take that result and compare it to that of another upgrade to determine the differences .... just to see what Canon (or any other manufacturer) might be slipping under the radar. The payload isn't really that large and, I believe, it would not be an immpossible task to write a program that could identify "candidate differences" in the code that might be differences in logic. It would require a good understanding of coding methods employed by the Canon engineers (inspection of the first payload would reveal much of that), a good understanding of the Digic chip instruction set (again, something that could be revealed with appropriate analysis of the firmware payload), and a reasonable understanding of the rest of the camera hardware.
BTW - none of this would be done with a camera. In fact, the target camera need not even be available. This would all be done on a computer.
BTW #2 - If all the above could be accomplished by an individual (or group of individuals), it might be possible to write and distribute a bogus firmware upgrade to create the "camera virus" situation to which you refer - depending on what sorts of security/recognition logic is included in the camera and/or the firmware upgrade software. I can conceptualize the process, but it's far beyond my capability, talent, and resources to even get started on this. However, from a strictly academic standpoint, I can see and understand the intellectual challenge this would provide. I don't see where it would be a viable target though - there not much that such individuals could offer in their firmware that would entice a reasonably cautious camera ownwer to download and install this hypothetical bogus firmware.
ETA - Now that this cat is out of the bag (yeah, like I'm the first person to think of this), remember .... Only download and install firmware from a trusted source .... from the site of your hardware manufacturer!!!
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Link to my Smugmug site
That strikes me as unlikely on both counts. These are small devices with limited memory and processing power, and I don't know of any history of malicious firmware that would have led to a demand for digital signing or encryption.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Not terribly difficult... not that I'm volunteering, you understand.
The existence of the free, independently-developed Magic Lantern firmware enhancement suggests that the information needed for this is already available.
I don't see it as much of a danger precisely because the firmware update process requires explicit user approval, so you can't sneak your virus in without the user being aware that something unusual is happening (as opposed to personal computers, which are stupid enough to boot without question from any disk that happens to be in a floppy or CD drive, or even a USB thumb drive). Even on PCs, nobody bothers with writing boot-sector viruses anymore, because a virus can spread much faster by exploiting holes in network security. So your camera is probably safe until it becomes a wireless Ethernet device... wait a minute... what was that about WiFi cards in the CF slot?
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
I think your subsequent comment that 3rd party companies have produced firmware updates for Canon cameras is more telling.
Link to my Smugmug site
If you should look at their project and want to try it yourself make sure that you know it is still classed as "Beta" stage and not completely stable. The current build is from a fairly old version of the Canon firmware. There is also a very explicit disclaimer on the site:
"
*************************************************** * * * THIS IS DANGEROUS AND MIGHT DAMAGE YOUR CAMERA. * * NO WARRANTIES. NO GUARANTEES. DO NOT TAUNT. * * IF IT BREAKS, YOU GET TO KEEP BOTH PIECES. * * * * THERE IS NO SUPPORT. * * USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. * * * ***************************************************"Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums