Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

With computing equipment, that would be 'the kiss of death'. If MS tried that with their OS upgrades, there would be a real rush to convert to Linix...

gwilliams6

If you remember , years ago there were a few updates that Canon had you pay for. The negative reception to that is why all camera firmware updates now are free.

Makers wont go back to charging for that, ever. Any maker that started that again could kiss customers goodbye.

As a longtime pro, NO, I would not pay for firmware updates for any gear I paid dearly for.

Cheers and best to you.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

My first thought is that I hope to #e!! Canon doesn’t read UHH. What a terrible idea… but, honestly it would depend on cost and what the change brings to the camera.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The usual case is that having a computer at the heart of the camera offers many choices of how to program it. Choices made at time of camera release may be incomplete or may be improved upon later. BUGS should be (and usually are) fixed for free. Whether to charge for a firmware upgrade probably depends on a lot of factors.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

Exactly! It seems the type of firmware upgrade mentioned would be beyond the hardware capabilities of all but the most recent iteration of the camera.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If I recall, there was a time in the past when both Apple and Microsoft charged for system upgrades. Some time after Apple quit charging for them, so did Microsoft. Linux WAS getting popular among the geekier set back then...

BebuLamar

I understand well that afterward new ideas came out and improvements can be made. However, if customers are so willing to pay for upgrade it may make manufacturers to withheld features they already developed but save it to sell as upgrade which really cost them nothing.

Ted 2455

At one time MS did charge for upgrades to the operating system. Apple has always done I for free.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Someone has to pay for the software/firmware development cost. That is a considerable expense that either comes out of the initial price of the camera or is paid for by those who want it or need it.

Once a camera is in the "maturity" part of its life cycle, and competitors have "bested" it, the price usually drops by several hundred dollars. When that happens, there are no margins to cover updates.

Another consideration is that at some point, engineers hit a "hardware wall," meaning existing hardware can't do what they want, so a new model is required for the feature they're considering. For instance, it was possible to tweak contrast-detect autofocus several times in some older Lumix cameras, but there was a limit to how good it could get. Only by re-engineering the sensor and processor were they able to add phase-detect AF. It's good at launch, but will get better over time as user feedback steers them to adjust the interface and controls. But at some point, a new generation of hardware will be required to go further.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

delder Loc: Maryland

A version of SAS.
CAMERA Manufacturers COULD market a fairly advanced camera with some advanced AI type features to be enabled by future SW upgrade...
The full feature Camera would sell @ a higher price.

MJPerini

Canon has done this a couple of times in the past. It was a significant feature (which escapes me at the moment) and was video related, and required a trip to the service center. Thus I did not opt to do it. But if the feature appealed to me I would do it.
Canon has been very good about free firmware upgrades, so for a major enhancement that was helpful to me I would bee happy to pay for it.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

It depends.

If it is like the update from probably 15 years ago that added the capability of original image authentication to my Nikon D200, I would consider something that firmware updates should do in the ordinary course of things. That is not something that I should be asked to pay for.

If, on the other hand, there should have been an update for my D300 upgrading it to the full functionality of a D300s (including video capability), and identifying the change in the camera's various displays and menus, then I think that might be worth paying for, because it would almost certainly increase the value of the camera and what I would expect to sell it for. Unfortunately, I suspect that changes at this level would be pretty rare, because the D300s also includes a significant hardware change. In addition to the second memory slot in the D300s, there was probably an increase in internal working memory and processor, whether noted in marketing materials or not.

I would expect that the number of actual model- or release-level increments that could be achieved would be pretty limited in actual practice.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Today it seems like sensors are recycled look at Nikon Z7 and Z6 series.
Or the Z50 and Zfc.
I am sure there are many cameras that do this.
Yes there might be some hardware changes but alot of it is firmware.

jeffhendy Loc: El Dorado Hills, CA

One of the problems in trying to do this is that later models often have improved processors, and so the new features that are available probably will not work on an older model.