EOS Utility and Mode Dial

[Davoud]

5D III, 6D. Can the function of the Mode Dial (P, Tv, Av, M, B, &c.) be changed from within EOS Utility version 3.4? It seems to me that I used to do this with earlier versions of EU, but it has been a couple of years since I used DPP or EU. The mode selected on the camera is shown, but it is grayed out in the software, not selectable as other camera settings are.

Thanks!

Davud Illig

[Waddizzle]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

And it is clear that the C1 and C2 modes can set any of the modes, so it is under program control, not hard linked to the mode dial.

---

Good call.  That was my whole point from my earlier post.

[Waddizzle]

"Purely hypothetical, as it seems you are correct and the Mode Dial cannot be controled remotely" 

Albert Einstein referred to such hypothetical ponderings as "thought experiments."

[RobertTheFat]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

And it is clear that the C1 and C2 modes can set any of the modes, so it is under program control, not hard linked to the mode dial.

---

So what the OP is looking for, I guess, is the ability to use EOSU to set several of the shooting parameters simultaneously with one mouse click. E.g., "Now use the parameters specified in the C1 user mode" or "Now use the settings I previously saved in a file".Sounds like a worthwhile idea, although probably beyond EOSU's capability today. But as long as the parameters under consideration are settable by EOSU (and some obviously are), the capability could presumably be implemented entirely in software, without any modification of the camera's hardware or firmware.

[kvbarkley]

I think he would be happy if he could just use the Utility to switch from "P" to "M".

[Davoud]

I don't know where you got that idea. I want the ability change such parameters as I wish individually without creating macros to hold sets of shooting parameters that I minght not find appropriate for a every situation. I haven't found a use fo the Custom Functions memory feature. I want to be able to control the camera settings remotely. As I said previously, the switches on the camera, be they push-buttons or a rotating dial, are not connected to cams, wheels, gears, or levers; they are all electrical switches connected to the camera's processor. So any one could be made accessible remotely. I concede that what makes sense to me does not always make sense to others.

[Waddizzle]

" As I said previously, the switches on the camera, be they push-buttons or a rotating dial, are not connected to cams, wheels, gears, or levers; they are all electrical switches connected to the camera's processor. " 

Really?  How do you know that?  Have you taken one apart and traced the circuitry?  I think your expectations are based upon a set of false assumptions.  In my 40+ years of experience with digital electronics, with the exception of VLSI computer boards on a chip, I do not know of any digital device that incorporates a design where I/O hardware is connected directly to the CPU. 

Seeing how most digital cameras make use removable memory cards, the digital CPUs in a camera obviously make use of a memory/address bus in some form, which means they are not VLSI all-in-one chip designs.  There would have to be interface chips surrounding the CPU to interact with I/O devices.

[Davoud]

I believe that when I press a key on my computer keyboard I am sending an electrical signal to the CPU and not activating a mechanical lever that in turn activates other mechanical elements. How that electrical signal reaches the CPU, i.e., what intermediate circuitry is involved, is of no concern to me. Chip and bus architecture are of no concern to me. VLSI is of no concern to me. Interface chips are not my concern. That's the trees obscuring the forest. Ditto the electronics in a DSLR: not my concern. If that's your hobby, fine. I'm interested solely in the bitmap image that appears on my computer display, and in the external camera controls that allow me to make that image appear as I perceived it before I made it. An analogy is driivng. Between the starting point and the destination I don't think of what the engine control module or the EFI chip(s) are doing; I can take these items for granted, or like many drivers, not know that they exist, because my knowledge of them is irrelevant. Also camshafts, crankshafts, valves, and what-not. I don't have to know that they exist in order to get where I want to go. 

Is my assumption a false one? Are you asserting that the various switches on my Canon DSLR cameras are, in fact, mechanical and not electrical, and that they somehow transmit kinetic energy, rather than electrical energy, to the camera's digital control module(s), and that's why I can't control some switches remotely? I think the reason I can't do that is a bureaucratic decision on Canon's part, and not a technical, certainly not a mechanical, impediment.

[Waddizzle]

"Is my assumption a false one? Are you asserting that the various switches on my Canon DSLR cameras are, in fact, mechanical and not electrical, and that they somehow transmit kinetic energy, rather than electrical energy, to the camera's digital control module(s), and that's why I can't control some switches remotely? I think the reason I can't do that is a bureaucratic decision on Canon's part, and not a technical, certainly not a mechanical, impediment.." 

Is your assumption a false one?  I don't know, anymore.  You tell me.  You want to remotely change the position of an electro-mechanical switch.  You argue that you should be able to do so, based upon a set of assumptions you've made as to "how it should work,' one which has no basis in fact, just a belief system.

[kvbarkley]

As I pointed out Waddizzle, the *camera* can set the mode in the C1 and C2 position, so it seems to be an electrical, not mechanical connection, and that Canon could set the mode with EOS Utility.

(I am still trying to figure out whether the funky gearshift knob on the dash in my minivan actually connects to the transmission or is just a big switch. I *know* the throttle is drive by wire.)

Davoud, we have no idea whether these ideas actually make it to Canon. You might want to call the support line and tell them your issue.

[Waddizzle]

"As I pointed out Waddizzle, the *camera* can set the mode in the C1 and C2 position, so it seems to be an electrical, not mechanical connection, and that Canon could set the mode with EOS Utility." 

Don't forget that  I pointed out the custom mode positions of the switch before you did.  Don't forget that the electro-mechanical switch itself must be changed to enter those modes, or to switch from one to the other.

Is camera mostly "fly-by-wire", most likely so.  But, many of the user interface and controls are hard-wired devices, just the same, most particularly the mode switch, which is the topic of conversation. 

I'm sorry to point out, a few mouse clicks will not change the physical state of the mode switch. 

In fact, even if the mode switch were actually directly wired to the CPU, which has been postulated, then it would be a near certainty that some mouse clicks could not change the state of the switch.  The CPU would only be looking at the switch, and nothing else.  At least an electronic interface, which the OP has categorically rejected, between the switch and the CPU would offer a layer of abstraction, which could conceivably convert the hard switch into a programmable soft switch. 

Here's a comparison example that uses a motor vehicle.  Most windshield wiper switches are electromechanical switches that provide digital state information to a wiper controller, not analog data.  Connecting a monitoring and diagnostic computer to the vehicle will most llikely not allow you to directly control the state of the windshield wipers.  The EOS Utility is comparable to that monitoring and control diagnostic computer.  You can remotely test and control some critical functions, but not every aspect of the vehicle.....like the door locks and windshield wipers.