New "silent" K7 firmware...

dlacouture · 12-23-2009, 12:39 PM

Well, once again, there is a new "silent" firmware update for the k7...
Previous firmware was v1.02.00.14 (MD5 was 4d287f4588cae9bbd14df144407e143d)

Now Pentax Japan has a v1.02.00.16 available here

MD5 is 0e397e6c1b444b779e6a2c76396eaa86, even though date and size are the same...

Upgrades unknown...

Jasvox · 12-23-2009, 12:46 PM

old news...

also, covered here.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/83733-k7-new-firmw...yone-knew.html

Jason

ryan s · 12-23-2009, 12:48 PM

With a version that's varied xx.xx.xx.02 places, it might as well be for a typo such as a missing period or comma

Jadran · 12-23-2009, 12:58 PM

Yep, it's a new one as OP said, just instaled it.

Nass · 12-23-2009, 01:05 PM

You know, it's really strange they do this - because a company that's proactive about firmware updates is a company that's responding to its customers and keeping a product fresh & up to date. Seriously, they should be screaming about firmware updates, spelling them out in huge detail and telling the world "look at us, ANOTHER great K-7 firmware update".

Seriously - inefficient - marketing

-Nass

gfmucci · 12-23-2009, 01:38 PM

It would REALLY be nice to know what it does, though.

keyser · 12-23-2009, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Nass

You know, it's really strange they do this - because a company that's proactive about firmware updates is a company that's responding to its customers and keeping a product fresh & up to date. Seriously, they should be screaming about firmware updates, spelling them out in huge detail and telling the world "look at us, ANOTHER great K-7 firmware update".

Seriously - inefficient - marketing

-Nass

Perhaps, but that's only true if the firmware adds features. If it's a bug fix then it leads to the impression that the software simply wasn't quality controlled and was rushed to release.

Mystic · 12-23-2009, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by keyser

Perhaps, but that's only true if the firmware adds features. If it's a bug fix then it leads to the impression that the software simply wasn't quality controlled and was rushed to release.

good point, totally agree with you.

I believe they are working on the firmware 1.03 or something, and as they will be sure they've fixed anything or added something, they'll definately tell it publicly.

ryan s · 12-23-2009, 05:59 PM

It's not even a v1.02 to 1.03, which is "major."

It's a .02 "update" in the 4th position...I don't think FireFox or AVG would even make you automatically upgrade...

**ManuH** · 12-24-2009, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Mystic

and as they will be sure they've fixed anything or added something, they'll definately tell it publicly.

And meanwhile they leave new users with a "beta" firmware? It doesn't make sense to me. The 1.02.16 surely does fix something, but what exactly?

keyser · 12-24-2009, 12:21 PM

With a revision number so small, it was probably something embarrassing like a spelling mistake. Certainly in the software development life cycle, a fix with such a low revision number would have to be extreme low risk, not related to core functionality.

Nass · 12-24-2009, 12:35 PM

No, in marketing, even if some think it's just an embarassment, it's how you portray it to the consumer - I used to be involved with code releases like this and we ALWAYS marketed it with trumpets.

Even corrections are a good thing! You can either see a correction as an embarassment to be hushed under the carpet, or one of those inevitable things and "yay here's another great fix from your customer and user-centric Pentax team!".

People respond a lot better to positive, go-getting proactive customer-savvy stuff - moaners because something was wrong in the first place are the minority.

Jadran · 12-24-2009, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by keyser

With a revision number so small, it was probably something embarrassing like a spelling mistake. Certainly in the software development life cycle, a fix with such a low revision number would have to be extreme low risk, not related to core functionality.

Well, previous silent releases like 1.01.00.9 and .13 were fixing "green line" problem, which is not a small fix. But, who knows what this release is for. Maybe it's really something unimportant.

keyser · 12-24-2009, 02:55 PM

Ok, I agree with your guys reasoning. If it's a change worth making, and releasing. you should at least detail that change so customers can see that you're being pro-active.

The green line thing should have been marketed as an important fix to a known problem. I guess they may have been ashamed to admit that it was there.

But, what if it's to fix a security flaw in the software whuch would allow the camera to be hacked in the way that Canon cameras have been? You certainly wouldn't want to highlight that kind of change for fear that it will be exploited.

Nass · 12-24-2009, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by keyser

But, what if it's to fix a security flaw in the software whuch would allow the camera to be hacked in the way that Canon cameras have been? You certainly wouldn't want to highlight that kind of change for fear that it will be exploited.

Yeah, that's a very fair point. To be honest I wonder if it's just hardcore people that update their firmware, I'm not so sure if joe average really does?

12-23-2009, 12:39 PM	#1
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	New "silent" K7 firmware... Well, once again, there is a new "silent" firmware update for the k7... Previous firmware was v1.02.00.14 (MD5 was 4d287f4588cae9bbd14df144407e143d) Now Pentax Japan has a v1.02.00.16 available here MD5 is 0e397e6c1b444b779e6a2c76396eaa86, even though date and size are the same... Upgrades unknown...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Would you pay an annual "firmware" fee once your body is out of warranty?	brecklundin	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	05-11-2010 07:50 AM
New "silent" K-x firmware fixes SR blur problem	LeDave	Pentax News and Rumors	46	01-13-2010 01:05 PM
working K-7 "green line" firmware fix	Nass	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	09-02-2009 12:37 PM
"Battery Safety Firmware" - will others follow?	nosnoop	Pentax News and Rumors	21	06-20-2009 06:59 AM
Any known issues with the firmware "reverting" on the K10D?	JamieP	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	02-12-2009 01:28 PM

12-23-2009, 12:46 PM	#2
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	old news... also, covered here. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/83733-k7-new-firmw...yone-knew.html Jason

12-23-2009, 12:48 PM	#3
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	With a version that's varied xx.xx.xx.02 places, it might as well be for a typo such as a missing period or comma

12-23-2009, 12:58 PM	#4
Jadran Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Zagreb Photos: Albums Posts: 105	Yep, it's a new one as OP said, just instaled it.

12-23-2009, 01:05 PM	#5
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	You know, it's really strange they do this - because a company that's proactive about firmware updates is a company that's responding to its customers and keeping a product fresh & up to date. Seriously, they should be screaming about firmware updates, spelling them out in huge detail and telling the world "look at us, ANOTHER great K-7 firmware update". Seriously - inefficient - marketing -Nass

12-23-2009, 01:38 PM	#6
gfmucci Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The Villages, FL Posts: 70	It would REALLY be nice to know what it does, though.

12-23-2009, 01:43 PM	#7
keyser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tsawwassen, BC Posts: 376	Originally posted by Nass You know, it's really strange they do this - because a company that's proactive about firmware updates is a company that's responding to its customers and keeping a product fresh & up to date. Seriously, they should be screaming about firmware updates, spelling them out in huge detail and telling the world "look at us, ANOTHER great K-7 firmware update". Seriously - inefficient - marketing -Nass Perhaps, but that's only true if the firmware adds features. If it's a bug fix then it leads to the impression that the software simply wasn't quality controlled and was rushed to release.

12-23-2009, 01:49 PM	#8
Mystic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 490	Originally posted by keyser Perhaps, but that's only true if the firmware adds features. If it's a bug fix then it leads to the impression that the software simply wasn't quality controlled and was rushed to release. good point, totally agree with you. I believe they are working on the firmware 1.03 or something, and as they will be sure they've fixed anything or added something, they'll definately tell it publicly.

12-23-2009, 05:59 PM	#9
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	It's not even a v1.02 to 1.03, which is "major." It's a .02 "update" in the 4th position...I don't think FireFox or AVG would even make you automatically upgrade...

12-24-2009, 11:29 AM	#10
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by Mystic and as they will be sure they've fixed anything or added something, they'll definately tell it publicly. And meanwhile they leave new users with a "beta" firmware? It doesn't make sense to me. The 1.02.16 surely does fix something, but what exactly?

12-24-2009, 12:21 PM	#11
keyser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tsawwassen, BC Posts: 376	With a revision number so small, it was probably something embarrassing like a spelling mistake. Certainly in the software development life cycle, a fix with such a low revision number would have to be extreme low risk, not related to core functionality.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-24-2009, 12:35 PM	#12
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	No, in marketing, even if some think it's just an embarassment, it's how you portray it to the consumer - I used to be involved with code releases like this and we ALWAYS marketed it with trumpets. Even corrections are a good thing! You can either see a correction as an embarassment to be hushed under the carpet, or one of those inevitable things and "yay here's another great fix from your customer and user-centric Pentax team!". People respond a lot better to positive, go-getting proactive customer-savvy stuff - moaners because something was wrong in the first place are the minority.

12-24-2009, 12:57 PM	#13
Jadran Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Zagreb Photos: Albums Posts: 105	Originally posted by keyser With a revision number so small, it was probably something embarrassing like a spelling mistake. Certainly in the software development life cycle, a fix with such a low revision number would have to be extreme low risk, not related to core functionality. Well, previous silent releases like 1.01.00.9 and .13 were fixing "green line" problem, which is not a small fix. But, who knows what this release is for. Maybe it's really something unimportant.

12-24-2009, 02:55 PM	#14
keyser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tsawwassen, BC Posts: 376	Ok, I agree with your guys reasoning. If it's a change worth making, and releasing. you should at least detail that change so customers can see that you're being pro-active. The green line thing should have been marketed as an important fix to a known problem. I guess they may have been ashamed to admit that it was there. But, what if it's to fix a security flaw in the software whuch would allow the camera to be hacked in the way that Canon cameras have been? You certainly wouldn't want to highlight that kind of change for fear that it will be exploited.

12-24-2009, 04:01 PM	#15
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	Originally posted by keyser But, what if it's to fix a security flaw in the software whuch would allow the camera to be hacked in the way that Canon cameras have been? You certainly wouldn't want to highlight that kind of change for fear that it will be exploited. Yeah, that's a very fair point. To be honest I wonder if it's just hardcore people that update their firmware, I'm not so sure if joe average really does?