Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-01-2014, 05:40 PM   #46
Veteran Member
Imageman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 461
Then you don't understand how odds work, If you have 1 in 10 chance of dying crossing a motorway on foot, and you cross that motorway 20 times on foot you have a very good chance of dying on one of those crossings. Sure each instance carries the same 1 in 10 chance, but doing it 20 times in fact shortens the effective odds and makes dying much more certain than 1 in 10.


Its 1 in 10 for a reason. 1 in 10 risk of death doing an activity means if you do it 10 times youll probably die once.


The more you do something dangerous the more your odds reduce.


I once highlighted the risk of a major incident at the City of London Airport to a Risk analyst.


The odds against a major incident per number of movements (flights) had been exceeded at that airport.


I argued that because the odds had been exceeded, that made a major incident certain in the near future. He was sceptical that odds can be used to predict failure in this way. One week later there was a major incident at the City of London Airport. Correctly assessed and quantified risk can be reliably used to predict failure.


The fact is that risk increases as you repeat risky activities this cannot be denied.


I was in risk analysis Disaster recovery and incident management for a while and I understand risk.

07-02-2014, 03:56 AM   #47
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,678
QuoteOriginally posted by Imageman Quote

I was in risk analysis Disaster recovery and incident management for a while and I understand risk.
Then if it was your job, Imageman, and people depended on you, it's bizarre you calculated the risk incorrectly in your example above.

You don't do a simple sum of independent probabilities.

According to your analysis and disaster management method, if there is a 1 in 3 chance of failure and you do it four times, the chances are 1/3+ 1/3+ 1/3+ 1/3 = 133%. 😮.

Last edited by clackers; 07-02-2014 at 04:13 AM.
07-02-2014, 04:15 AM   #48
Veteran Member
Imageman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 461
ok you win the odds don't increase the more you do it
07-02-2014, 04:18 AM   #49
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,678
QuoteOriginally posted by Imageman Quote
ok you win the odds don't increase the more you do it
But we all know that, Imageman.

It's the invoking of your mathematics and previous job that was in error.

07-02-2014, 04:36 AM - 1 Like   #50
Veteran Member
Imageman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 461
Im not looking for an argument here whatever you say is fine
07-03-2014, 02:34 AM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 301
Please share an official press- or company-adress of Pentax-Ricoh for this affair.
I might try to aks for a substitute of may camera and maybe create good news here
Thanks if you got an official link that might work !
07-03-2014, 05:17 PM   #52
Moderator
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,172
QuoteOriginally posted by TomGarn Quote
Please share an official press- or company-adress of Pentax-Ricoh for this affair.
I might try to aks for a substitute of may camera and maybe create good news here
Thanks if you got an official link that might work !
How about you discuss the problem with one of these firms? Perhaps they can offer some advice? Premium Händler - Österreich - RICOH IMAGING DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
07-06-2014, 01:44 PM   #53
Site Supporter
ripper2860's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 710
Fingers crossed/knock-on-wood, I've never had an issue with a bad flash. You'd think that Ricoh/Pentax would provide an MD5 hash on their download site so folks could check file integrity after a download. I'm a computer guy and MD5 hash information for files is often included on the download sites. One downloads and copies the file to its destination and then runs an MD5 checksum tool against the file to confirm it matches the MFG/Vendor checksum. If they match, file integrity is good and it should be a good flash, assuming flashing steps are followed. There are free utilities and websites where an MD5 checksum of a file can be generated for comparison. (http://onlinemd5.com/)

Maybe we could have a STICKY where folks who have successfully flashed could post the MD5 checksum for their downloaded file so other folks could confirm their downloads. Just a thought.

Ex:
K500 V1.02 Update
File Name: 1394234332_k500v102.exe
MD5 Checksum: B75D24A107D8E08795A8109157AAB587


Last edited by ripper2860; 07-06-2014 at 01:55 PM.
07-06-2014, 08:51 PM   #54
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,678
QuoteOriginally posted by ripper2860 Quote
Fingers crossed/knock-on-wood, I've never had an issue with a bad flash. You'd think that Ricoh/Pentax would provide an MD5 hash on their download site so folks could check file integrity after a download.
Not a bad idea, Ripper. But the most common reason for firmware upgrade failures on equipment is interruption of the routine eg the power goes off or the user restarts the device during the process.

A nice thing about cameras are the steady supply from their batteries.
07-06-2014, 09:24 PM   #55
Site Supporter
ripper2860's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 710
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Not a bad idea, Ripper. But the most common reason for firmware upgrade failures on equipment is interruption of the routine eg the power goes off or the user restarts the device during the process.

A nice thing about cameras are the steady supply from their batteries.
Bad flashes due to process interruption is certainly true for computer equipment and similar gear. As it relates to cameras, I've updated firmware on my cameras with no issues, by following the steps; however, I am at the mercy of the file integrity. The only reason I suggested MD5 hash was that some users in this thread state they followed the process, but may have received a corrupt file from the Pentax site. If Pentax (or users in a "Sticky Post") would post the valid file's MD5 checksum, then folks could determine if the file is good before flashing. A file could be corrupted as part of the download process, or even as part of Pentax uploading the files to their host servers. Probably 99.999% of files and flashes go fine, but that is no consolation to those .001% where it doesn't. Takes just a few seconds to generate and/or check an MD5 hash. I'm also concerned that the prevailing feeling may be to skip updates due to the fear of something going wrong. Updates sometimes include significant use and reliability improvements -- to by-pass taking an update for fear of "bricking" one's camera is disappointing to say the least.

Of course, it is possible that Pentax contains MD5 or checksum information in the BIN file header itself and that the camera reads that and does an MD5 or checksum verification at the start of the update process, aborting if the checksum is invalid. If that is the case then my suggestion of MD5 checksum data on the Pentax site or in a Sticky is a moot point. :/
07-07-2014, 01:47 AM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,678
QuoteOriginally posted by ripper2860 Quote

Of course, it is possible that Pentax contains MD5 or checksum information in the BIN file header itself and that the camera reads that and does an MD5 or checksum verification at the start of the update process, aborting if the checksum is invalid :/
We'd hope so. ☺
07-07-2014, 02:35 AM   #57
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,327
QuoteOriginally posted by ripper2860 Quote
Of course, it is possible that Pentax contains MD5 or checksum information in the BIN file header itself and that the camera reads that and does an MD5 or checksum verification at the start of the update process, aborting if the checksum is invalid. If that is the case then my suggestion of MD5 checksum data on the Pentax site or in a Sticky is a moot point. :/
Why not just download the mac .zip version and run an archive test on it ?

I'm sure that most, if not all, of the bricking sob stories are due to bad batteries and/or dodgy memory cards. Cosmic rays excepted
07-12-2014, 07:44 AM   #58
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 301
QuoteQuote:
I'm sure that most, if not all, of the bricking sob stories are due to bad batteries
and/or dodgy memory cards. Cosmic rays excepted
Yes, just not in my case - camera oder data was definitely corrupt.
No way to prove that of course if the firmware has been deleted ...
And it makes no sense to cry for spilled milk. Hallelujah and Amen.
07-12-2014, 01:15 PM   #59
Veteran Member
Imageman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 461
It seems to me that first of all there are a significant number of camera brickings happening.


Im not suggesting its a huge number but its worrying.


What about the poor guy who buys a camera second hand and pays 300 dollars for it. He upgrades the firmware and it bricks, Pentax then quote 500 dollars for a fix. so he tells them to sling it in the dumpster, then he buys another second hand camera for 400 dollars. Hes just spent close to 800 dollars (with all posting costs added on), on buying what amounts to 1 working camera, and the one hes now got still needs a firmware upgrade. Hes highly unlikely to upgrade the firmware and risk bricking the second one then have to buy a third camera. He might as well have spent his money buying a new camera in the first place. This is unacceptable.


If its going to cost over 700 dollars (recent Pentax quoted price) to fix a bricked camera Pentax should take some effective action to lessen the risk.


Lets look at whats happening.


Pentax warranty fixes bricked cameras that are affected inside the warranty, this is an example of accepting the risk.


They refuse to fix cameras that are affected outside the warranty period. This is an example of ignoring the risk. They expect the owner to pay all the repair costs. Simply ignoring the risk is not acceptable in this day and age.


Its time to demand a responsible mitigation of the risk. That is, some effective action to reduce the risk of failure.


Its been suggested that either the battery was faulty or the sd card was faulty or the camera failed some tests. Why would you test the camera simply to replace a rom image, particularly if the first thing you do before you test is erase the old rom.


It seems to me if your going to perform 3 actions. 1 erase the old rom image, 2 write the new rom image, 3 test the camera works. Only an idiot would do it in this order, 1 erase the rom, 2 test the camera works and will work with the new rom, 3 write the rom.


The order you do it in is, 1 test, and then if the test passes, 2 erase the rom (because you know camera is working and shouldn't hang up during the process), 3 write the new image


To suggest a customer runs a piece of software that you provide, and then when it fails, to run out the door shouting as you go, "Its not my fault, you ran my software, didn't you read the small print where I dont take any responsibility for what I tell you to do, your on your own in this". Is the kind of thing I expect to see in a Tom and Gerry cartoon. Not from one of the leading manufacturers.


I would have expected a responsible manufacturer to publish alongside the firmware upgrade, a software program that is run like the upgrade but before it, a program that doesn't delete the firmware in roms, it simply goes through a series of tests. Test of the battery capacity, the sd card, the camera hardware. The purpose of such a piece of software would be to make sure the upgrade can be expected to run and complete satisfactorily before the upgrade is applied.


Or alternatively, the upgrade has the test in it, and it tests the camera before erasing the rom, then if the camera fails the test theres no harm done and the program can give an error saying why it didn't complete.


Surely its not too difficult to test the camera can replace the firmware successfully before you go ahead and delete it.
07-12-2014, 11:01 PM   #60
Moderator
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,172
I agree. There should be some failsafe method to load new firmware. Our surround sound system advises when new firmware is available, and then the on-screen menu shows what it does. First, it checks the new firmware before installing it and then, it does the actual install. No warnings from the manufacturer that they don't take any responsibility for their firmware.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
battery, board, button, camera, card, cause, chip, components, cost, death, failure, firmware, format, hardware, k-5, memory, menu, pentax, pentax help, phone, rom, root, sd, strip, thread, update
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1.12 firmware gives my images an unwanted line eric riggs Visitors' Center 8 07-09-2012 10:48 AM
New firmware: v1.13 for K-5/645D, v.1.12 for K-7/K-r, v1.03 for K-x Adam Pentax News and Rumors 71 05-15-2012 01:42 PM
K-7 Firmware Version ceojr Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 09-24-2010 05:10 AM
K-7 Upgrade Firmware Version 1.03 jogiba Video and Pentax HDSLRs 7 03-21-2010 12:35 PM
Pentax K-7 firmware version 1.02 is out! inferno10 Pentax News and Rumors 17 10-25-2009 09:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:43 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top