PC's and Apple allows third party software, Why can't Pentax do that?

[yvon_bourque1]

<p>Hi Pentaxian friends.<br /><br />We all know that digital cameras are somewhat l

ike computers. Sure, they use real glass lenses and many of the traditional analog came

ras characteristics are still utilized. However, some of the functions , if not most of them,

are embedded into the camera's "Firmware". Currently, only Pentax can modify the Firmware

and they do so by issuing downloadable revisions mostly to fix problems reported

by users.<br /><br />You know that the cheaper DSLRs could have some of the same funct

ions as the more expensive models. For example, the new <em><strong>K-x</strong></em> does not show the "red-illuminated" square over the focus point. I suspect that it could ea

sily be added in the Firmware. The <em><strong>K20D</strong></em>

and the <em><strong>K-7</strong></em> have the capability of adjusting the front/back f

ocus of any lens attached. Again, I suspect that this feature could be added in the Firm

ware. I remember the complaints from <em><strong>K10D</strong></em> owners wan

ting to have the <em><strong>K10D</strong></em> updated so that it too would h

ave the capability of adjusting front/back focusing. I also remember some hacker, from Russia,

coming up with some solution to the problem, that anyone could somehow enter in the firmw

are. Of course, any problems caused by someone unsuccessfully trying to modify the Fi

rmware, automatically voided the warranty.<br /><br />There are many great software compa

nies in the world, that could come up with pretty interesting features. Why not grant a license to

these guys and let them sell additional features for the Pentax cameras. Instead of reducing t

he sales, I believe it would increase them.<br /><br />Would you buy an Apple compute

r if only Apple were able to write software for its computers? Would you buy a PC if it would

only run on the manufacturer's software? Of course you wouldn't.<br /><br />Pentax has a

lways been a unique company with design and ideas outside the box. Maybe time has com

e. The time to beat Canikon at the game has come...maybe.<br /><br />Wh

[jpo3136b]

<p>I remember reading an article about an open source digital camera that was being developed in some lab somewhere. I thought that was a good idea. Yet, some of us still have occasional trouble with the lens cap. My VCR has been blinking 12 o'clock since 1986. I'm not predicting a tsunami of greatness.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Great Idea...Can you imaging over clocking your DSLR? 12 FPS here we come... :)</p>

[yvon_bourque1]

<p>John,<br>

I had the same problem with my VCR. The fix is simple...put electrical tape over the clock. ;-)<br>

Javier, I don't know if they could do that. F<br>

rankly I don't know what can be done with Firmware., but what I know is that we would get more features, just like software does to computers. Software won't do anything to the hardware but I'm curious to know what could be done.<br>

I know we have some computer engineers and wiz people reading here. Let us all know what are the possibilities.</p>

[rogerdaltx]

<p>It's a really good thought and little reason that it could not be done. Not necessarily as a firmware replacement but perhaps an add-on. For example there is a handy free 3rd party firmware enhancement for MANY of Canon's point and shoot's called CHDK (Canon Hacker's Development Kit). It's adds RAW capture, histogram, about a dozen useful features and some silly stuff to to their P&S cameras. I use it to get RAW files out of my old A710IS when I'm SCUBA diving with it.<br /> <br /> I think it comes down to interest and for a 3rd party to do it, other than intellectual property infringement concerns the install base has to be large enough to make it worth while. Sadly from an install base stand point I don't see that happening with Pentax.<br /> <br /> There is little doubt the k10 and k20 could be firmware upgraded to include many of the k7 features. And as a k20d owner I'd be willing to pay for the firmware enhancements but I won't buy a k7 just to get them. Pentax may be missing a revenue stream here. Would you pay to upgrade your k10d with lens focus adjustment or add in camera HDR, auto SR level or some of the other newer features to your older body?</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I'm 99.9% sure that there is hardware involved with providing the red LED indicators in the viewfinder to indicate which AF point(s) are in use. No software/firmware update is going to provide that. Anyway, this arrangement isn't so unusual in electronics, hardly restricted to cameras. I've heard this line before, maybe it 'would be nice' but usually people start sounding like they feel they should be entitled to it or other free upgrades.</p>

<p>I can't reprogram the firmware in my microwave oven either. Opening an API for third-party developers is more work than people realize and may cause a bunch of headaches and unneeded bad press if it doesn't go smoothly. Plus, it removes the ability of the company to differentiate multiple models with limited hardware differences, and to finance continued development of their firmware by directing upgraders to new models.</p>

[yvon_bourque1]

<p>Andrew, there is a difference between a microwave oven and a DSLR containing computer capabilities hundreds of times more powerful that the early 1980's computers. In 1983, Texas Instruments had a computer named TI 99 / 4A, and commodore also had a computer named commodore 64. The commodore was open architecture and allowed any software company to write programs for it. Texas Instruments did not allow third party software and therefore was driven out of the market. Could you imagine a PC running only on Microsoft software? No Photoshop, no Lightroom, etc. I think there is room in the DSLR industry for some third party innovative software development. Then again, I am just curious about the possibilities.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Yvon, a fun idea but your analogy:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Would you buy an Apple compute r if only Apple were able to write software for its computers? Would you buy a PC if it would only run on the manufacturer's software? Of course you wouldn't. </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>falls apart here. Software improvements (including API-based services) are common for the third parties, while sanctioned firmware updates by third parties are unheard of. Them's the crown jewels of most hardware platforms you're talking about. The hardware then gets out of control of the designer. A popular example is the Hackintosh that lets OS X run on non-Apple machines. That is lost hardware revenue for Apple.</p>

<p>Furthermore we actually use computer devices all the time that only run the manufacturer's software: HVAC controls, HDTVs, DVD players, iPods, elevators, digital coffee makers, my washing machine, Andrew's microwave, etc.</p>

<p>Another issue would be support calls when a user has problems with the firmware that is updated by a third party. Regardless of agreements with third parties (and the testing and configuration management of all this would be extremely expensive for Hoya--all those fun features like SDM, the auto-level, PTTL etc would have to work), Hoya would have to fix things to maintain goodwill. Way too expensive with little economic gain. It is far easier to dole out controlled functional improvements with each new camera model and make a new pile of cash.</p>

<p><strong>ME<br /> </strong></p>

[brendonmeyer]

<p>One thing I'd like to see is instead of scrolling through focal lengths when attaching a manual lens you could have customized firmware that lets you scroll through your lenses. Obviously it would be limited, so people with a ton of lenses wouldn't benefit. But for me, just having the 2 extra lenses it would be nice to be able to put the manufacturer name and perhaps a way to select the aperture and have it part of the EXIF.</p>

<p>Similar to the way you can change ISO by holding the "OK" button and scrolling the front wheel, you could make the rear wheel select aperture while holding some other button. Or instead of having the OK/front wheel change ISO have it select aperture instead, etc. Or hit "OK" once and hold to change ISO, or hit it twice and hold to change aperture. If you don't take the time to do this it just leaves it blank like it currently works, only you'd at least have the manufacturer's name.</p>

<p>Obviously if someone were to code this it would need a little GUI or something and have to be done on the PC then flashed to the camera. I guess you could actually put a keypad in the bios, and use the 4-way controller to scroll through the alphabet to enter your lens info, but that's probably a lot of overhead just for this.</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p><em>...Can you imaging over clocking your DSLR? </em><br>

Would you like viruses, worms, and trojans with that order, sir? <em><strong><br /> </strong> </em></p>

[jgredline]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Would you like viruses, worms, and trojans with that order, sir? </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>If my dslr comes with Wifi , I will take my chances :)<br /> </strong></p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Seems I remember a post indicating that Pentax has stated not having the focus point ilumination has allowed a physically smaller design. If that is the case, I am willing to live with just the focus indicator, like my Pentax film models. For me, the ultra-compact size is one of the chief benefits going for the K-x.</p>

<p>I already have very fine large and compact models. Nice idea for me, to add an ultra-compact having video, and which still delivers exceptional IQ, with ultra-low noise to boot!!</p>

<p>Sometimes conditions I face will indeed indicate a need for one or more of these particular qualities. Otherwise, one of my other two models will still be the better choice to use.</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p>For the record, I'd love to see an open firmware architecture by the cameramakers. But the thing that will keep it proprietary is the market segmentation it affords them. With common hardware components, they can use firmware to slice and dice the feature set and performance levels--and charge accordingly.<br>

I think maybe only a newcomer to the field would have sufficient incentive to do this. Somebody big, somebody with enough cash to suffer through the money-losing market entry phase. Everyone else, including Pentax, probably feels better served by the closed model.<br>

But who knows, people are working on this idea. Give things like this a few years to grow, we might be surprised:<br>

http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/camera-2.0/</p>

[george_c.]

<p>Andrew and Michael are right of course, it does not make economic sense for a company to allow users and third parties to control the development of their hardware: it stops them from charging for new cameras with new features every 12 months or so. Look at the shelf life of 35mm bodies compared to that of DSLRs and you quickly realise what a killing these companies are making. That's not to say that the market is easy though, there's never been more competition and the cost of development is certainly more than it's ever been...</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Thom Hogan had the same thought last month. His point is that the iPhone camera is more programmable than any DSLR and that camera companies are going to have to do something different if they want to maintain growth rates.<br>

Go here and read the section on the inverted razor blade.<br>

http://bythom.com/2009 Nikon News.htm</p>

<p> </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I still point to my VCR, guys. Even if the equipment is <em>very</em> programmable, how will this unlock a benefit for the common user? Take the Apple, for instance. Xcode vs. Visual Basic.</p>

<p>The Apple Xcode is obviously a very sexy programming suite, in my opinion superior to the MS VB. Opinions about code aside, they offer two differences: price and flexibility. The Apple Xcode comes with the computer installation discs, and has several kinds of platforms and plenty of easy to use stuff. The VB requires a separate purchase, and also has a good set utility options (more narrow, but its so frequently used that it can't be denied).</p>

<p>The Xcode is already paid for, strong and flexible. The Visual Basic will mean another stack of dollar bills, and be more limited. </p>

<p>Both are super-powerful options at the fingertips of many a user, but who uses them? In a way, this would add a level of programming skills to what's what about digital cameras. Calculating exposure or customizing autofocus? How good are your C programming skills?</p>

<p>The VCR is blinking 12 o'clock, and we still forget the lens cap!</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>I'll quote from <a href="http://enticingthelight.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/the-time-has-come-for-a-new-dslr-paradigm/">an article</a> someone, ahem, wrote on his blog back in May last year. Note the difference between <em>firmware</em> and <em>software:</em></p>

<p align="center"><strong>SOFTWARE</strong></p>

<p>The stuff you cannot touch, yet makes your camera work. Up until now there has only been firmware, which is basically your camera’s operating system, and it has always been controlled by the camera companies (except in the case of <a href="http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK">CHDK</a> , a firmware hack for Canon P&S’s). The time has come for <em>software</em> to also enter the DSLR vernacular.</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>Firmware:</strong> Camera companies could come up with new and/or improved capabilities they could sell as a firmware upgrade. Remember that much of a camera’s IQ and image “look” depends on the firmware. Firmware development is much cheaper for a camera company than creating a whole new camera, so their return on investment would be very high. Plus, more people would invest in new firmware than in new cameras.</li>

<li><strong>Applications:</strong> If camera companies would allow it, users could build their own applications for their cameras, just like those currently available for the Firefox browser, the iPhone or the BlackBerry. Why do <em>I</em> have to think of obvious things like this? Seriously, the first camera brand to allow users to create and share camera apps will sweep the market. Let me repeat that:<em>The first camera brand to allow users to create and share camera apps will sweep the market</em> .</li>

</ul>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Mis, of course you're right, users don't change firmware. That's why it's called firmware. There is a grey area where it's user-hacked (like jail-broken phones), not supported by the company. I am participating in this thread under the assumption that what some people actually want is more software/apps, less firmware in consumer electronics.</p>

<p>I also think that most of the people participating in discussions like this don't want to do the programming themselves, and are assuming that other people will do it for them, probably for free or close to it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Pentax has stated not having the focus point ilumination has allowed a physically smaller design."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've seen this before, and frankly this sounds like a load...they had these lights on many compact models including *ist, *ist D/DS/DS2/DL/DL2, none of which are much different in size than a K-x, in fact some of them managed to do it with a pentaprism rather than pentamirror. Given how many people bemoan this omission, whatever miniscule additional space it would have taken would probably have been worth it. Pentax absolutely could have at least half-way done it by including indicators in the viewfinder display rather than superimposed on the screen--this is how it used to be done, for example in MZ-S (though there were only 6 points) as well as some cameras of other makes. All this said, using center point & the in-focus indicator isn't all *that* bad--this is how most AF cameras worked for their first 10-15 years.</p>

<p> </p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>Pentax would probably never support this because it would only cost them money to support it and it would probably not make them any at all.<br>

I have used CHDK and something like that may be possible if someone geeky enough is interested enough and they have sufficient time. Since the fw update is a file you copy on to the camera rather than a specialized application running on your computer, the real possibility exists to reverse engineer it. It would be easier if multiple cameras used the same hardware base with different features activated via firmware so the firmware files could be compared. I believe this is how CHDK came about.But CHDK is not really an alternative firmware but rather a hack to enable hardware features that are present already but deactivated. Think of it as a modified config file.<br>

I use an open source alternative firmware on my mp3 player (Rockbox on a Sansa Fuze) to add features (different file formats, cross fading, volume normalization, etc) and it's great. It's a true replacement OS based on a Linux kernel. Sandisk doesn't support it but that doesn't really matter to someone like me who knows this and knows where to find the information to troubleshoot any issues that come up. I can even make modifications to the source code and submit them back to the community for everyone to take advantage of. But it's not for everyone - I wouldn't give my mom a player with Rockbox on it for example. Another nice thing about the Sansas and Rockbox is you can get the hardware for $30 so I'm more inclined to tinker since the stakes aren't very high. I sure would hate to accidentally kill my perfectly good camera from trying to hack it.</p>

 

[waltflanagan]

<p>John, not everyone let's there VCR clock blink 12:00. I've been setting people's VCR clocks since I was 6 because the blinking irritates me more than just playing around with it and figuring out how to set it.</p>

<p>Many of us are engineers and enjoy playing with technical stuff and writing software for fun. I actually used to work at a company that designed chips in digital cameras and know about 10 people who used to write camera firmware.</p>

<p> </p>

[zane1664879013]

<p><em>Pentax has stated not having the focus point ilumination has allowed a physically smaller design.</em></p>

<p>I think focus point illumination relies on an overlay of material with attendant wiring, which would increase cost and size. How much? Who knows.</p>

[mggm59]

 

 

<p>I agree that OEM supplied upgrades would be a hit (now they mainly fix bugs). I had the software of the entertainment/communication package of my Lancia Phedra (an Italian MPV, a tad smaller than a Chrysler Voyager) upgraded several times, gaining new functions at every step. And boy, was I happy about it. For instance, the first version (2002) did not have the traffic warning function that shows when there are queues or works on a road, and a couple of years later it became available. And someone has hacked the map CDs to include radar signs. Also, there are modified versions of the engine maps (but in this case too the OEM understandably do NOT support them...). So mods are welcome by users, particularly when they are fee likein the case of my car, but I would probably pay ( a little) for new functions.<br>

I rather believe there are some more difficulties than in writing sw for a PC because:<br>

- a camera is not a real computer, it has no RAM and no HD (although the memory card could be used as one or both, albeit quite slow for RAM use), so the idea of writing applications as someone mentioned, is not doable now (and adding ram for this purpose would add to the cost with no clear benefit for a lot of customers (and it would take a touch screen, as a minimum, to have a decent input device to control the sw)<br>

- the firmware is probably written in a non-standard language, with no documented interfaces etc, so it would be a complex work to reverse engineer it, and Pentax has no interest in releasing the language because their competitors (particularly new ones, like Samsung, which do not have the accumulated "wisdom" of many decades of camera development) could use this knowledge to more easily see what's in their code.</p>

 

 

[janne_moren]

There are two reasons electronic devices don't generally support this kind of thing.

 

First, support. You buy the camera from Pentax, and you (as in the public "you") will expect Pentax to support it. And that is even if you've downloaded dozens of third-party plugins and enhancements to your camera that ends up making it unstable and buggy. Yes, it is unreasonable to expect Pentax to guarantee the camera in such a case, and no, it's not reasonable to expect Pentax to be able to "fix" it when things go south, but you <i>know</i> that most camera buyers will not make that distinction and fully expect that support. It's a big, major support headache for any company.

 

Even for PC's where people really should know better by now, people are frequently blaming Microsoft for their unstable OS when it's some third-party driver or install that's causing the problem. I dislike MS as much as the next person, but they are getting a raw deal on this front.

 

Second, hardware. The camera software is driving the hardware directly. Software at that level can and will break things if written even a little wrong. I've once set fire to a robot with a software bug so I know what I'm talking about. You can set voltages and currents to components, you can make mechanical components collide by timing errors, you can regulate motor speeds past their design limits and and drive them past safe endpoints.

 

And there's more subtle things to go wrong too. What would happen if, say, you tried to increase frame rate by pulling down the mirror again a little earlier, so that the down solenoid is working against the upwards momentum of the mirror? Is the solenoid rated to handle that extra load or not? How do you find out without the data sheets, the precise mechanical design parameters of the construction, and the knowledge to read and understand it? If you test it, it may seem just fine one time, or ten times - or a hundred times - but end up reducing the lifetime of the mirror assembly by half or more.

 

Now, there are companies that do this. Buffalo, for instance, does allow you to replace the firmware in their routers and network drives. That situation is a little different though, as those things basically are small computers with no specialized electromechanical subsystems, and they run Linux internally already so it's already more akin to working with a PC than with a gadget. Even then, they're really careful to distance themselves from the DIY crowd; they help people play with their hardware, but being very careful never to have any kind of official endorsement of it. You won't find anything about this on their official website for instance.

[mggm59]

<p>I agree with most of what Janne writes, except for MS. Why is Apple less problematic then? Do their third parties always write better drivers etc for Apple than for MS? No, it's the same companies, maybe even the same people, they just have better and stricter SW guidelines, if they do not follow them they know their code will break sooner or later and they will have to rewrite it, so they do it right first time. And with the iPhone/Sw shop/app verification system Apple is going even further down that road.<br>

In principle Pentax could do the same, and even make money selling the add-ons putting them on a Pentax web shop after testing them.</p>

[janne_moren]

<i>I agree with most of what Janne writes, except for MS. Why is Apple less problematic then? Do their third parties always write better drivers etc for Apple than for MS?</i>

<p>

Off topic, but no, Apple isn't inherently better. Their systems aren't as stable and trouble-free as their fans would like to think. They mostly get into less trouble by having less third-party stuff installed on the system by default. Your mac, when you buy it, is all Apple hardware, with Apple-written or tweaked drivers, tested to work well together. Your typical PC is a mix of drivers and stuff from various sources right out of the box, with much less testing for problems.

<p>

The iPhone, Android phones and the like are not a good comparison - they all run a real OS with proper sandboxing of apps from the underlying hardware, rather like the Buffalo routers I mentioned above. They can absorb the extra cost of the software and the hardware needed because downloading and running stuff on them is a large part of the user expectation for those devices.

<p>

A camera doesn't have the hardware or software needed to support that kind of thing. To do it they need real OS's with much more complex system development - any guess how many software developers works on Android at Google versus camera software at Pentax? The complex software needs stronger CPU's, much more memory, more power consumption (you want a camera that loses power after a day?), cooling and so on, making it bigger, more expensive or both.

<p>

Which is fine if it ends up selling enough extra cameras. But unlike smartphones, most users have no interest in downloading apps to their camera (and remember, forget about controlling the camera hardware directly; that's the road to broken cameras and class-action lawsuits), and will simply shun the more expensive camera with the lousy battery time for the competitors.