Are Canon for Real?

Andrius Simutis said:
I'm pretty sure it does not void the warranty. Whether you should use it or not is debatable, but it doesn't change the camera in a material way that would impact your warranty. ML warning you that it might brick your camera and you use it at your own risk is just them covering their butt.
Click to expand...

Andrius, it was the Canon rep who told me this.
 
Just to be CRYSTAL CLEAR.... It does not void the warranty completely. However installing ML and then bricking your camera will mean that you will have to pay to get it unbricked.

If you install / use ML, and your monitor for some reason unrelated to ML dies on you.... if your dials become stuck or the connectors to the lens wont connect... that IS STILL covered even if ML is installed.

ML void warranty is ONLY in regards to bricking your camera or anything other thing caused by ML itself.

So stop peddling false information. This has been confirmed by Canon itself, do the search.

BobbyMurcerFan said:
Andrius, it was the Canon rep who told me this.
Click to expand...

He was not specific then... I don't see how the words coming from a rep superseeds that of the official Canon news reps.

And here's the official response:
http://www.diyphotography.net/dear-canonnikonpanasonic-can-i-use-custom-firmware-my-camera

NO company in the world can void any warranty regarding any damage that is covered by the warranty. As such, if the damage was not caused by ML you warranty still covers it... end of story.
 
Last edited:
legrevedotcom said:
...So stop peddling false information. ...
Click to expand...
I hope you believe me when I tell you that it wasn't intentional. I was simply repeating what was told to me at a convention intended for professional users in film and television by a Canon rep with three other reps around him. None of these reps were salesmen like you'd find at B&H. They couldn't sell anything if they wanted to b/c they had no stock to sell. And this rep was not contradicted. I find it odd that you hold me accountable for spreading false information, but let the Canon reps off the hook. I didn't even ask about it. They were the ones who mentioned voiding the warranty (it's actually the ONLY thing they would say about RAW and Canon DSLR's). That said, the information that you posted sounds more reasonable, so thank you for doing such.
 
Last edited:
Cosimo Bullo said:
Maybe the canon rep was actually just clueless.
Click to expand...
Perish the thought!

Reps, even reps at shows and expos who aren't trying to make a sale, aren't always up on the latest info or they have their own agenda, or just have human nature like ego or pride influencing what they say. These guys may take it personally that someone thinks their product isn't good enough without third party firmware. They may have little experience with it, and are afraid to recommend it. They may have misinterpreted another employee's off hand comment about it. Who knows, but you can't always take reps statements at face value. Some of them are great sources of knowledge and experience, and others are petty failed filmmakers with chips on their shoulders toward anything other than fanboyism of their products.
 
Why would you bring it up with a rep? It's just obnoxious and obviously hacking their camera is not something Canon would like to discuss. It's like asking someone at the Apple store about some new rumor or how a PC has better price/performance... these are sales reps, not engineers or executives, and coming at them with an aggressive question means they're obligated to end the discussion quickly, because it's a discussion to which you bring an aggressive attitude, and if they condone unsupported products then they are responsible for paying to support something someone else jury rigged to work.

Furthermore, how is the camera crippled? None of ML's features are stable or user-friendly enough for Canon to responsibly support them. The camera already had f8 autofocusing and clean HDMI out added after-the-fact. And meanwhile Canon offers a competitively priced video camera (C100) that is well-supported for prosumer use.

I don't understand why we as consumers feel so entitled. Companies are only obligated to give you what you want to the extent that it will motivate you to buy from them. I'm sure if Canon wanted they could price their gear cheaper and there are OTHER examples of crippled hardware that drive me nuts (no timecode sync or HDSDI on the C100? seriously?), but I've spent tens of thousands of dollars on their gear because it performs well and is priced well relative to the competition.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I saw that he "attacked" them.

I have to say I've also had issues with a Canon rep who works at Filmtools in LA. The guy was completely snobbish about the C300 when I asked about the validity of 8bit. The feeling was how dare I ask such a question of the mighty Canon... Go figure.
 
Policar said:
Why would you bring it up with a rep? It's just obnoxious and obviously hacking their camera is not something Canon would like to discuss. It's like asking someone at the Apple store about some new rumor or how a PC has better price/performance... these are sales reps, not engineers or executives, and coming at them with an aggressive question means they're obligated to end the discussion quickly, because it's a discussion to which you bring an aggressive attitude, and if they condone unsupported products then they are responsible for paying to support something someone else jury rigged to work. ...
Click to expand...
No, the proper analogy would be going up to GM during a car show and saying, "BTW, the Corvette has a lot performance tuners getting more hp out of the engine, do you think GM will be coming out with a supercharged version of the Vette?" That's essentially what I asked. I was not being obnoxious to Canon. And this is the third bad experience I've had with them when asking a very simple, nice question about RAW out of their cameras. Each time it was with different reps and in a professional environment. I also find it hard to believe that the rep wasn't spreading FUD. If he knows that techs can tell weather or not ML has been run, he probably knows the truth about its impact on the camera's warranty. I've been to a lot of these types of events and asked a lot of questions. I've never experienced anything like this from any other company. That said, I'm over it. Through this forum, I now know the truth about the impact or lack thereof of the warranty, for which I'm thankful. And I'm moving on.
 
BobbyMurcerFan said:
No, the proper analogy would be going up to GM during a car show and saying, "BTW, the Corvette has a lot performance tuners getting more hp out of the engine, do you think GM will be coming out with a supercharged version of the Vette?" That's essentially what I asked. I was not being obnoxious to Canon. And this is the third bad experience I've had with them when asking a very simple, nice question about RAW out of their cameras. Each time it was with different reps and in a professional environment. I also find it hard to believe that the rep wasn't spreading FUD. If he knows that techs can tell weather or not ML has been run, he probably knows the truth about its impact on the camera's warranty. I've been to a lot of these types of events and asked a lot of questions. I've never experienced anything like this from any other company. That said, I'm over it. Through this forum, I now know the truth about the impact or lack thereof of the warranty, for which I'm thankful. And I'm moving on.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of "better performance," it's a matter of supporting a hack that requires super fast CF cards and even then not perfectly, may very well strain the camera internally, and has basically no support in post. Given the context, the Canon rep was totally in the right. Asking about 60p or a swivel screen or something is another matter. I'm not saying he wasn't rude (or that you don't have the option of boycotting Canon gear or venting online), just that it's really the only response he can reasonably offer.
 
Last edited:
Policar said:
It's not a matter of "better performance," it's a matter of supporting a hack that requires super fast CF cards and even then not perfectly, may very well strain the camera internally, and has basically no support in post.
Click to expand...

have you used the hack? I did on a hard 4 day shoot and it worked almost flawlessly.

The report is that raw is less strain on the camera than shooting compressed video.

As far as no support in post nothing could be further from the truth.
 
Steve Kahn said:
The report is that raw is less strain on the camera than shooting compressed video.
Click to expand...

Canon reps at InfoConn13, who acted strange but by no means rude when I bombarded them with questions about raw, confirmed that there is no additional strain by using ML. They did, however, mention that it voids your warranty.
 
Steve Kahn said:
have you used the hack? I did on a hard 4 day shoot and it worked almost flawlessly.

The report is that raw is less strain on the camera than shooting compressed video.

As far as no support in post nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course I've used it. Was among the first to. (I also had it nearly brick my camera using one of the earlier versions.) I'll take your word on it not straining the camera, but we have no guarantee on that. I'm not sure I trust "the report" over Canon, but thanks for referring me back to "the report," whatever that means.

There is support for it to the extent that you can make it work, but, like the hack itself, NLE support is somewhat dodgy... most NLEs won't ingest it and most post houses won't accept 5D raw before being transcoded. It's easy enough for hobbyists to use, or for use on a small project, but it's not consumer-ready (easy to use), nor is it resilient enough to use on a higher end professional shoot in which every aspect of production is handled by a different house (reliable)... and the 5D is a proconsumer camera. Has to cater to both markets, and the hack is ready for neither. I'm glad it worked on your shoot, though, and I do think the hack is very cool. Just don't tell Canon. :) But seriously, the support for it is terrible relative to AVCHD, prores, even .r3d (which many post houses hate receiving). Terrible.

I'm not defending Canon's tone, but the letter of their response is all they can offer. They haven't set out to destroy magic lantern, which is about as positive a response as is imaginable for a product that has the potential (however limited) to result in broken camera and increased customer service costs. I can't see how anyone could reasonably be upset at their response to this. Look what Apple did to shut down jailbreaking (and don't ask any Apple employees their opinion on that).
 
Last edited:
How is a discussion about technology construed as an attack?

It's not like he hit him with a bricked camera.
And it's not like he walked up to a priest and attacked his faith.
It was a reasonable line of conversation regarding a highly publicized adaptation of a camera that this person represents.

I wasn't there so all I can say is I would have no problem chatting up anyone including the CEO of Canon regarding anything about their cameras.
Like countless people, I've invested a mortgage in their gear over the years. I'm their customer - I talk politely, they listen politely.
That's pretty much a standard of good business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top