cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

EOS Utility and Mode Dial

Davoud
Enthusiast

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

 

24 REPLIES 24

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

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.

" 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.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

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.

"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.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

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.

"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. 

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

I take issue with the term "hard-wired" to contrast the mode dial with the other electrical switches on the camera. All of the switches on the camera, whether momentary contact or rotating dials, are "hard-wired" to the camera's processor(s) in some way. Consider ISO. First press a momentary-contact button and then spin a dial. But the setting is controllable remotely. And so could the mode dial be controllable remotely if Canon wanted it to be so.

 

I repeat from my earlier post: The most likely reason the mode switch is not controllable remotely is that it is an electrical switch that mechanically locks into a position. If it were in P, for example, and one remotely changed it to Av, a look at the camera would give the wrong impression as to what mode the camera is in. I concede that would be Bad. It would, of course, be possible to have the camera automatically return to the mode set on the mode dial when the remote connection is broken.

 

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.

 

Not the best analogy, I think. The wipers on my car are connected to a remote sensor that automatically turns them on when it detects rain. Works very reliably. In other words, the electro-mechanical wiper switch to which you refer can be bypassed by a remote command. Look at the switch and it reads Off. But the wipers are on.

No, I don't argue that I should be able to change the mode dial remotely in the sense that I am entitled to that, only that it would be convenient for me to be able to do so. And I argue that, since this is nothing more than an electrical switch like all the other controls on the camera, to make it that way would not be unreasonable.

 

The most likely reason the mode switch is not controllable remotely is that it is an electrical switch that mechanically locks into a position. If it were in P, for example, and one remotely changed it to Av, a look at the camera would give the wrong impression as to what mode the camera is in. I concede that would be Bad. It would, of course, be possible to have the camera automatically return to the mode set on the mode dial when the remote connection is broken.

 

Here is an example of a case in which I would like to have been able to change the switch remotely. A couple of nights ago I had my 6D riding piggyback on a computer-controlled astronomical telescope. The camera was not within easy reach, particularly in a darkened observatory. It was under the control of EU. The mode dial was set to M because I believed that a series of 30-second exposures would be adequate. As it happened, 30 seconds was insufficent so I had to get on a low step ladder with a red flashlight to set the mode dial to Bulb while being careful not to bump the telescope, the mount, or other attached hardware. Huge, life-rattling thing? Nope. Unnecessary inconvenience? Yep.

"No, I don't argue that I should be able to change the mode dial remotely in the sense that I am entitled to that, only that it would be convenient for me to be able to do so.

 

I dunno.  You made a pretty emphatic argument that you should be able to make any remote change.

------------------------------------------------------------------

"The mode dial was set to M because I believed that a series of 30-second exposures would be adequate. As it happened, 30 seconds was insufficent so I had to get on a low step ladder with a red flashlight to set the mode dial to Bulb while being careful not to bump the telescope, the mount, or other attached hardware. Huge, life-rattling thing? Nope. Unnecessary inconvenience? Yep." 

 

You nearly paid the price for your own lack of vision and foresight.  It was a close one.  Don't blame the camera software.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."
Announcements