Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 11, 2009, 10:58 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default


Here's a series from the E-3/50-200 SWD after the firmware update. These were panning, but the AF does seem accurate. 117mm f3.5 in all pics.

There are a couple cut out. I slipped of the AF point a time or two, and there were a couple that missed, but overall I'm thinking there is an improvement with V1.4.
























Last edited by fldspringer; May 31, 2009 at 8:58 AM.
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 12, 2009, 8:28 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
boBBrennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas USA
Posts: 3,554
Default


hi Greg,

I just read where you said,"overall I'm thinking there is an improvement with V1.4." ............and I agree!IMO probably just what v.1.3 was supposed to be and this is a relatively simple correction code to make it.

This is a really nice series I find typical of your work, I would be proud of these photos (is that DAX?) had I made them.


I do believe v.1.4 is a worthwhile upgrade and regarding that the camera settings are preserved, however it is done, I am happy to have done the v.1.3 too. If this will be the trend for updates going forward I am certain we will all be happy for that. I've not read any information by Olympus that says so. Too, if the existing in camera data were to be written off to a memory slot, to a card or otherwise, that could be used to reverse an update I would then be quite happy about doing the upgrades as they come out.
____
boBB
boBBrennan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2009, 10:35 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

pgmCoder wrote:
Quote:
I do believe v.1.4 is a worthwhile upgrade and regarding that the camera settings are preserved, however it is done, I am happy to have done the v.1.3 too. If this will be the trend for updates going forward I am certain we will all be happy for that.
Hi, Bob

Not sure how Olydidit with 1.4 since the update wipes out and replaces the stored firmware code. But as you say, we can only hope this is the trend for the future.

However, there's no good reason for Oly not to include the ability to save camera settings in Master. They included that in Studio and it's unreasonable for them to not provide that to Oly DSLR camera ownersout of the box (i.e. Master).

Ted


tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2009, 2:47 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
boBBrennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas USA
Posts: 3,554
Default

....hi Ted,

Yeah, it is always a mystery except to the guy who wrote the code (at one time in my time I was a best author of mystery code, but learned better with maturity in the business of it). I will say that there is 'NO EXCUSE' for not being able to revert to previous code nor is there any reason for not retaining the settings data. It is always correct to make a backup available prior to an update whether the code imposes it directly or with an advisory for the user to invoke or bypass it with understanding of consequences........

Sounds like I am still working, ummmmmmmmm, I ain't but for more than 45 years in the real IT world we learned early on that backups and restores really are not a waste of time for the user and makes a developer's effort more meaningful & useful.

I like being able to do these firmware updates and I like how Olympus makes it happen for the cameras and accessories, save my settings and let me restore to a previous version and I won't have anything to fuss about.

Oh well.... the good news is 1.4 somehow seems to do it right but why only if 1.3 were the prior update.

Please excuse me Greg for babbling & rambling some what off topic of your thread.

____
boBB


boBBrennan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2009, 4:46 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

pgmCoder wrote:
Quote:
Please excuse me Greg for babbling & rambling some what off topic of your thread.

____
boBB

The reason I posted was because of the update. That's what I wanted was discussion.

I'm pleased that the settings weren't erased. I hope its policy vs. a one time exception.

If they allowed me to reload versions, I would have been on 1.0 or 1.1 as I found them to be as good as any for me. V1.4 shows promise, and I violated my "no update for at least two week" rule as v1.3 was such a step backward for me. My camera hunted more with 1.3 and was less reliable on lower light.

How about custom firmware. I'll doubt there are always some that will brick the camera in the process. but I'd love a version optimised for action. Just dreaming, I know.

Thanks,

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2009, 5:14 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

pgmCoder wrote:
Quote:
Sounds like I am still working, ummmmmmmmm, I ain't but for more than 45 years in the real IT world we learned early on that backups and restores really are not a waste of time for the user and makes a developer's effort more meaningful & useful.
Hi, Bob and Greg

I hear you. I'm a senior manager in the IT business. When we plan a software development project we evaluate Risks, risks being a product of the probability of occurance and the severity of the consequences. The way Oly does a firmware update has a number of possible occurances. All (the internet connection fails, the power fails in the computer or the camera) but one of them (the update works)have a catastrophic outcome - a bricked camera. Neither you norI would designthe process that way. We would design a process where the user could back up the camera's firmware and settings, the firmware update would be a two-step process where the update would first be downloaded to the computer (Oly Master) and then applied to the camera, and there would be an option to revert to the previous firmware if the update failed or if it was unacceptable. Duh! This is not rocket science.

I do like Oly DSLRs but their developers need to get into the 20th century (and then into the 21st).

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2009, 5:55 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

tkurkowski wrote:
Quote:
pgmCoder wrote:
Quote:
Sounds like I am still working, ummmmmmmmm, I ain't but for more than 45 years in the real IT world we learned early on that backups and restores really are not a waste of time for the user and makes a developer's effort more meaningful & useful.
Hi, Bob and Greg

I hear you. I'm a senior manager in the IT business. When we plan a software development project we evaluate Risks, risks being a product of the probability of occurance and the severity of the consequences. The way Oly does a firmware update has a number of possible occurances. All (the internet connection fails, the power fails in the computer or the camera) but one of them (the update works)have a catastrophic outcome - a bricked camera. Neither you norI would designthe process that way. We would design a process where the user could back up the camera's firmware and settings, the firmware update would be a two-step process where the update would first be downloaded to the computer (Oly Master) and then applied to the camera, and there would be an option to revert to the previous firmware if the update failed or if it was unacceptable. Duh! This is not rocket science.

I do like Oly DSLRs but their developers need to get into the 20th century (and then into the 21st).

Ted
I think every other manufacturer downloads to a card, and then, in a separate step, overwrites the camera's firmware. It seems the most reliable as memory cards are near bulletproof, and the computer is eliminated from the critical step.

All that is needed is to write to the memory. If that step fails, repeat as necessary.

Then charge the camera battery, put the card in, and the only thing that can happen is a camera failure or the operator cutting power before the rewrite is complete.



Olympus does first write to the comupter. There is no flashing unless that step is complete. The problem is there is a second set of hardware that could fail in the re-write, above and beyond the camera and operator err.

I've never had an issue except the USB cable supplied withmy E-3 was faulty. Thankfully it was a standard pin-out and I was up and running in short order.

I just don't like being under the control of someone that makes compromises in one area to the benefit of a different area. Once you jump, your done and out of options. Such was the case with v1.3.

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2009, 5:00 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,529
Default

Hi Greg

Those shots of your dog look very good - I wouldnt even have attempted to to shoot anything like that before the 1.4 update and looking at those it looks as if the CAF has been really improved.

Cheers

Harj

:O :?
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 1:41 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
I just don't like being under the control of someone that makes compromises in one area to the benefit of a different area. Once you jump, your done and out of options. Such was the case with v1.3.

Greg
Hi, Greg

I totally agree. This is just common sense in the world of computer software. Although a common sense ignored by Microsoft - you can't easily revert to a previous version of Internet Explorer.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27, 2009, 8:39 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
tkurkowski wrote:

I think every other manufacturer downloads to a card, and then, in a separate step, overwrites the camera's firmware. It seems the most reliable as memory cards are near bulletproof, and the computer is eliminated from the critical step.
Some people are not too happy with 1.4 as they have AF issues with it with some glass (this issue may be region-specific, as well, for I've seen few complaints about 1.4 on Western forums), some also reported problems with higher noise and worse WB. Having asked local Oly rep re downgrade they received a noncommittal answer that this could potentially be done by the service center but for a fee.

Now this is a very customer-unfriendly response, is it not? So, some resourceful man either figured it out himself or found somebody who did, and voila, the solution:

It is, naturally, possible to update oly firmware directly from the CF card.
The files are copied onto the card, the card installed in the camera, and the camera is turned on with OK button held down.

The entire procedure is described here (in Russian), and somewhere in the thread there should be links to 1.2 and 1.3 firmware. Several people have already tried it, succesffuly, failure rate appears to be zero. Of these, some reverted back to 1.4 after all, some stayed on 1.2/1.3.

Needless to say, this procedure may result in a bricked camera, and may result in a void warranty as well. So this post is not to suggest anything, but rather to demonstrate that for some reason, Olympus decided to hide the possibility to update firmware from CF card from its customers.
s300pmu1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:40 PM.