Should we ever consider FW upgrades?

[Vivek]

Given Apple’s admission that they deliberately slow down their “older” models via FW upgrades and at least one Sony FW (A7rII) that introduced the infamous “star eater” (aggressive noise reductions at above 3.2s exposures) should we follow a company’s suggetsion and upgrade the fw when issued?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

From some camera suppliers, Fuji and Panasonic are good examples, I'm mostly certain that firmware upgrades are part of their policies to make customers satisfied. Those two companies at least have apparently decided that customer satisfaction is vital for their long term survival. With some other companies, not necessarily in the photography industry, I get a feeling that firmware and software upgrades are parts of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), the scheme that IBM refined to perfection to convince customers that buying products from competitors like Amdahl (mainframe computers) and Memorex (disk drives etc.) was a certain path towards a sudden and very unpleasant death.

I recently bought a Mac Pro 4,1. I bought it because the previous generation of Mac Pro computers seem to be indestructable and because more or less every component can be replaced and/or upgraded. This is a concept that Apple now seems to have left. The machine comes with a caveat though: As opposed to the last of the great Mac Pro models, the 5,1 that can be upgraded to at least High Sierra (10.13), the 4,1 can only be upgraded to El Capitan (10.11) unless I install a third party patch (High Sierra Patcher). For that reason, among others, the 5,1 is much more expensive second hand.

Currently, running El Capitan is not a problem, since Adobe CC 2017 runs under that version. In theory I can run CC 2017 forever and stay happy without patches and/or upgrades. However, if 15 years or so in the future I decide to (or have to) upgrade to a camera that is not supported by CC 2017, and I have to upgrade to something like CC 2032, which will probably not run under El Capitan, then a third party patch which works today, but maybe not with some future upgrade from Apple, will become a necessity.

Or I can simply do what Apple wants me to; buy the new iMac Pro, a machine that can't be upgraded or re-configured and hardly be serviced. That's what FUD makes people do.

We're back to the dying polar bear. In a world that drowns in garbage and pollution, one of the world's leading makers of computer devices goes from making relatively sustainable products that can be upgraded, serviced and re-configured, products with a long life, to products that are designed to die without any way of upgrading or repairing them available unless you go to more or less home made solutions that may or may not work.

It obstructs my work and my lifestyle, and it's unethical. Can we trust the suppliers of our gear to prioritise what their customers need, and no tleast the environment, above the short time profitability of the company? With some suppliers, the answer to that is a very clear "no". This is one of the reasons why I will never own an iPhone.

 

[Frankly]

I'm hardly an Apple fan boy but the case for slowing an older phone to align with its diminished battery shouldn't be as bad as the media is spinning it.

Likewise, it's not reasonable to expect most people to keep the same computer from 2017 to 2032.

People still keep and use their Apple computers 2-3x longer than the equivalent PC and that speaks well of their quality and value.

But I'm not upset that the Apple IIci 68030 box I bought in 1990 for ~$5000 and upgraded throughout the early 90s with 68040 cards and larger drives, RAM, and adapters eventually became obsolete. (Although yes, it still ran in 2005, 15 years old, but I had nothing to run on it but vintage kids' games.)

There have always been alternatives if you're willing to invest in learning about them, granted you pay with your time and fiddling instead.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I'm hardly an Apple fan boy but the case for slowing an older phone to align with its diminished battery shouldn't be as bad as the media is spinning it.

Likewise, it's not reasonable to expect most people to keep the same computer from 2017 to 2032.

People still keep and use their Apple computers 2-3x longer than the equivalent PC and that speaks well of their quality and value.

But I'm not upset that the Apple IIci 68030 box I bought in 1990 for ~$5000 and upgraded throughout the early 90s with 68040 cards and larger drives, RAM, and adapters eventually became obsolete. (Although yes, it still ran in 2005, 15 years old, but I had nothing to run on it but vintage kids' games.)

There have always been alternatives if you're willing to invest in learning about them, granted you pay with your time and fiddling instead.

My 8 year old "new" Mac Pro works like new, and for what I'm going to use it for, mostly photo editing, it will probably work fine for at least another 8 years, if not longer. I see no reason why things shouldn't work for 15 years or more, computers included. My car is ten years old and after 200,000 kilometres, it still works flawlessly. My original OM-1 worked for more than 30 years as my main camera.

Considering the fact that technology is supposed to get better and that the world has a pollution problem that's increasing, there's really no reason to manufacture or buy products that don't last long... except for corporate profits.

When it comes to the iPhone and Apple's excuses, the excuses reflect the sad fact that the iPhone has a battery that isn't user replaceable. For most people, at least in high cost countries, that means that when the battery dies, the phone dies. I suspect that their battery excuse is only part of the truth. A "secondary" effect of a slower phone is that users are more likely to buy a new one earlier than they would if it was up to the same speed as new even after a few years.

I've been planning to buy a new camera, the Panasonic G9, when it becomes available in January, but the whole Apple thing (and a few other things as well) has made me reconsider, so maybe I'll just buy a Speed Booster to get more use of my old OM lenses for my existing m4/3 bodies. I really need less, not more.

 

[Vivek]

Well articulated, Jorgen.

My affection (or affliction?!) for old manual focus lenses has some real reasons. Any lens with a “chip” is a degraded optics, in my view.

 

[iiiNelson]

Given Apple’s admission that they deliberately slow down their “older” models via FW upgrades and at least one Sony FW (A7rII) that introduced the infamous “star eater” (aggressive noise reductions at above 3.2s exposures) should we follow a company’s suggetsion and upgrade the fw when issued?

Interesting question and I guess there’s two ways to look at it.

In general firmware upgrades/patches at their essence are an admission of the company not making the product as optimized as they could at introduction. Then there’s the question of if you’re satisfied with the product at release. If so then there isn’t a strong reason to upgrade anything beyond security patches in a computer but if not then why buy the product in the first place?

while I’m dont personally care about the “star eater” fiasco because I don’t shoot star trails there were legitimate functionality upgrades to camera speed that interested me. I’ve been considering a Fujifilm system switch (for very specific reasons that are tied to reducing the amount of time I spend editing on a computer for print and web work along with smaller file sizes) but many of the “Kaizen” upgrades (after digging into what they provide) are adding basic functionality that already exist in other cameras at launch such as tethered shooting capability, 4K Video, useable AF tracking, obtaining decent AF accuracy, being able to bracket up to 9 shots, film simulations, etc. So while I appreciate Fuji adding these things, apart of me questions why a “camera company” has to add basic functionality to their cameras in the first place?

 

[pegelli]

I agree with you Vivek and Jorgen, I see no point in joining the rat race and always update to the latest/greatest. I find making the best of what you have can be just as rewarding or even better. This applies to cameras, computers and other electronics.
My 12 year old Konica Minolta 5D still gets regular use, as does the 10 year old A700 and 8 years old A850. The only thing that tempted me into Sony E-mount was the possibility to use old MF lenses that I still had in the closet from my film days.

Since I'm not going to subscribe to Lightroom CC I guess the latest version (6.14) will run forever on my current computer, only thing I probably need to add over time is hard disk space. So if it doesn't break I'm going to use it for a long time to come.

Jorgen, good idea to get the speed booster, I got one also for OM lenses to use on my Sony NEX6 and A6000, works like a charm and very pleasing rendering. And if you get a dumb adapter as well you get 2 FOV's from every lens, and have even more use for them.

And regarding FW upgrades I think suppliers should give full disclosure of what is changed and not "sneak in" things like slower processing and star eaters. Only with full disclosure users will be able to make an informed choice on whether to do the upgrade or not. I think it's up to the user if he wants to make the upgrade or not depending on his preferences and needs and not up to the supplier with a "one size fits all" mentality.

 

[Vivek]

I hope the class action law suits agains apple puts everyone on notice.