zlacker

>>xairy+(OP)
I thought the whole point of these camera LEDs was to have them wired to/through the power to the camera, so they are always on when the camera is getting power, no matter what.

Having the LED control exposed through the firmware completely defeats this.

>>sbarre+T1
For what it's worth, you could just power on the camera, take a pic, then turn it back off instead. Provided you can do this fast enough, an indicator LED is rendered worthless. So you'd need to make the indicator LED staggered, to stay lit for a minimum amount of time.

There's also the scenario where the LED or the connections to it simply fail. If the circuit doesn't account for that, then boom, now your camera can function without the light being on.

Can't think of any other pitfalls, but I'm sure they exist. Personally, I'll just continue using the privacy shutter, as annoying as that is. Too bad it doesn't do anything about the mic input.

>>perchi+e5
LEDs are diodes. So you can run power _through_ them. Power Supply -> LED -> Camera.

>>akira2+so
While true, the amount of power would be too low, LEDs also have quite high forward voltage (~3V for blue ones) and they are current driven devices. That suggestion would require pass all the current through the LEDs. LEDs don't like to be reverse biased either. Overall, it's a rather appalling idea. On top of the fact that LEDs can fail short.

More also you'd want a hold up time for the light (few seconds at least), as taking pictures would flash them for 1/60 of a second or so.