I bought a Canon EOS R5 - potential overheating solutions

[hijodeibn]

3 minutes ago, Nezza said:

All these so called 'workarounds' really are an olympic sized exercise in turd polishing.

it is a shame we have to look for workarounds, but if there are workarounds I want to know about them and see if they will work for me, I am not getting a Sony crappy zombie skin tone, so if the camera can be used and I can adapt it to my shooting stile that's good news for me, anyway the price is really too high for what we will get, but next year we could see an interesting discount, let's see.

[Nezza]

4 minutes ago, rawshooter said:

Philip Bloom is - by his standards: unusually - outspoken on the R5:

I've followed him for years and I've never seen him so damning on a mainstream camera release. I remember him ripping on a very niche Fran 8K but that product was total garbage and the company went bust. But this is supposedly Canon's flagship. Flagship bust more like.

[SteveV4D]

25 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

Same guy made a comparison between 4K and 4KHQ and looks like 4K is totally usable. So I will be waiting for Andrew's feedback about it, we could get several workarounds to use this camera in most of the situations.

 

Some thoughts.  Is line skipped from an 8K sensor yielding better 4K than one line skipped from a 6K sensor?  Does the AA filter mean the downsampled 4K from 8K isn't as sharp and therefore easily matched?  Why is everyone raving how wonderful HQ 4K is, if sharpened line skipped 4K looks as good?

To my eyes though, I could see the difference even on my phone.  HQ 4K looked naturally detailed, whereas standard looked sharp, which can give that video look.  Also he was using his face as a test, which can disguise lack of detail better; he should have tried a landscape view with a whole load of small detail.  Or something where moiré would be likely to show.  So it feels biased and his over the top reactions were annoying too.  As if sharpening a soft image wouldn't be comparable to a detailed image with minimum sharpening.  Its not rocket science.

[hijodeibn]

2 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

Some thoughts.  Is line skipped from an 8K sensor yielding better 4K than one line skipped from a 6K sensor?  Does the AA filter mean the downsampled 4K from 8K isn't as sharp and therefore easily matched?  Why is everyone raving how wonderful HQ 4K is, if sharpened line skipped 4K looks as good?

To my eyes though, I could see the difference even on my phone.  HQ 4K looked naturally detailed, whereas standard looked sharp, which can give that video look.  Also he was using his face as a test, which can disguise lack of detail better; he should have tried a landscape view with a whole load of small detail.  Or something where moiré would be likely to show.  So it feels biased and his over the top reactions were annoying too.  As if sharpening a soft image wouldn't be comparable to a detailed image with minimum sharpening.  Its not rocket science.

Agree, his overreactions were really out of the place, we need a trustable review to see if 4K will be usable at the end. Soon we will see it from Andrew so better wait and decide with the facts on the table.

[wolf33d]

50 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

Same guy made a comparison between 4K and 4KHQ and looks like 4K is totally usable. So I will be waiting for Andrew's feedback about it, we could get several workarounds to use this camera in most of the situations.

 

Who cares about a workaround for 4K24p?? Every camera does that since a long time. There is no workaround for 4K60p and 120p, recording externally is not option otherwise we would use proper cine camera if weight and size wasn't an issue. 
I am fine working with time limitations to get those heat producing features (like 15min max in 4K120) as long as taking stills / be in the menus do not lower those limitations and as long as the camera recovers similarly to any other camera on the market, and not in 2+ hours like it seems to be the case. 
For me it has never been about the initial time recording limitation, which are understandable, but about the recovery time and the camera heating by itself when on. The latter is what makes the camera barely usable for any usage and could have EASILY been avoided by Canon technically as proven by competitors. It's likely that they did make it more thermally efficient by purpose / and or put software limitation. If they actually did their best, which I do not believe a second, then they should fire the whole company (with managers first) and start from 0 or stick with making printers. What a joke. 

I went from "amazing, finally" when announced to "still great" when we heard about recording limitations to "WTF is this BS" when we found out that the camera is actually almost unusable for video due to the above. 
On top of that, my camera ordered day 1 still did not ship with no date in sight. That's actually probably a good thing since if Canon doesn't fix this I am afraid my testing period will very likely end up with a return. 

[Nezza]

Peter McCannon's next video entitled "I just spent a week inside an industrial freezer and got some INSANE R5 footage!'

[Kino]

1 hour ago, gt3rs said:

slashcam has tested RS and 8k, 4kHQ is 16ms!!!...... boy they have created what would be the perfect hybrid but nobody can use for video because the recovery times are just insane.

Either is software crippled or it has a big HW flaw.... if the first let's hope they remove/fix if the second why they don't sell a version in a bigger body with a Fan?!? 

8k 30 RAW, 4k oversampled from 8k 10bit with 16ms RS and AF and nobody can take advantage..... what a waste.

Problem is that is a very good photo camera (best canon ever) so even if they do nothing they will sell a ton....

I have no doubt this 8K sensor will find its way into Canon's cine lineup with proper heat management. But you will be paying a lot more cash for this privilege.

Like any Japanese conglomerate, Canon are masters of product differentiation. They will never give you everything in one product and they will never give you more for less.

Indeed, it turns out this camera has amazing RS performance, but it is otherwise hobbled vs. the 1DX III when it comes to usability for video. It also lacks the more creamy look of the 1DX III and has slightly less DR. You can see how it clips easier in this test:

:

[Video Hummus]

That’s pretty damning coming from Phillip who almost always takes the middle, reasonable road when it comes to comparing cameras.

I think his thoughts on being “punished” for using the camera summarizes this whole shit-show.

[Andrew Reid]

8 minutes ago, Nezza said:

Peter McCannon's next video entitled "I just spent a week inside an industrial freezer and got some INSANE R5 footage!'

Do you have anything constructive to offer or just more of this? Getting a bit bored of it now.

[Adrian Bacon]

Correction: you bought a seriously expensive stills photography first camera that just happens to have the ability to record pretty high quality video, NOT a video first camera that just happens to record stills. If you intend to use this camera for video first, you shouldn’t be expecting reliable high end cinema performance in a stills camera form factor.  That’s kind of like expecting C700 performance in the price and body of an EOS RP. ?!?! If you need reliable C700 performance, then use a C700, not the RP. I’m using C700/RP as an example.

 

in terms of how canon chose to market the R5, yes, it’s unfortunate that they are chose to market it as video first, however reviews are showing that it’s not that camera, at least not in current firmware form, so if anybody is stupid enough to buy anything based solely on manufacturers marketing (Not just Canon), then they kind of deserve to get what they get. This is why independent reviews exist.

[androidlad]

This thread details the teardown process, modifications made and some important findings:

http://c.tieba.baidu.com/p/6848700307?pn=1

He replaced the two thermal pads that did not fully cover the CPU with a dollop of thermal paste and noticed significantly better and more even heat dissipation.

Most important finding: despite the temperature drop and improved heat dissipation, 8K/4K HQ still cut off at 20min mark, suggesting a firmware limit is also in place.

[ajay]

Is there any mention of improved recovery time? That's the other factor. Is the crazy recovery times due to temperature or firmware? If it's firmware, there's no hope other than Canon to fix it.

[Wild Ranger]

"It seems as soon as there is a card inserted, an overheating countdown timer starts, but doesn’t apply when an HDMI device is attached and the card removed"

21 minutes ago, androidlad said:

Most important finding: despite the temperature drop and improved heat dissipation, 8K/4K HQ still cut off at 20min mark, suggesting a firmware limit is also in place.

These get very fishy. I had commented in another post about suspicion and my crazy paraonic theory that the overheating limit is only a limit made by firmware, nobody believed me... Now I believe it more firmly, but we still have to wait for the truth to come out.
For me, Canon's credibility is at stake in all of this.

 

[Andrew Reid]

Thanks @androidlad

This is the kind of post we need more of.

[Leica50mm]

Looks like an easy fix . 

[Andrew Reid]

56 minutes ago, Adrian Bacon said:

Correction: you bought a seriously expensive stills photography first camera that just happens to have the ability to record pretty high quality video

Correction!

"The ability" in terms of maybe for 10 mins, during the first hour of a shoot, but then after that no ability whatsoever to record high quality video.

56 minutes ago, Adrian Bacon said:

NOT a video first camera that just happens to record stills. If you intend to use this camera for video first, you shouldn’t be expecting reliable high end cinema performance in a stills camera form factor. That’s kind of like expecting C700 performance in the price and body of an EOS RP. ?!?

It's no excuse at all. Canon are using 8K RAW as a marketing trick to sell more cameras.

Have a think if this kind of dishonesty is what you want to be seen to be defending.

Even if customers come to terms with the fact that they have mis-sold to and lied to by Canon, and they come to terms with the pixel binned 4K 30p maximum capability for reliable shooting, the damage to trust in the brand is immeasurable.

56 minutes ago, Adrian Bacon said:

 If you need reliable C700 performance, then use a C700, not the RP. I’m using C700/RP as an example.

The very fact you are using an EOS R camera as a B-cam to C700 is how the R5 was sold to us, with Canon's press release at launch explicitly mentioning that the camera would be comfortable on C300 III productions as a high-end 8K RAW video capable camera, with oversampled 4K and 4K/60p/120fps.

56 minutes ago, Adrian Bacon said:

in terms of how canon chose to market the R5, yes, it’s unfortunate that they are chose to market it as video first

There is more to this than marketing. It may be that they are entirely blameless. It could be that the camera was supposed to work far better than it does and an unforeseen manufacturing problem or design issue held it back.

There's all sorts you don't know and can only speculate at.

56 minutes ago, Adrian Bacon said:

however reviews are showing that it’s not that camera, at least not in current firmware form

Yeah, well as one of those reviewers, you can thank me.

56 minutes ago, Adrian Bacon said:

so if anybody is stupid enough to buy anything based solely on manufacturers marketing (Not just Canon), then they kind of deserve to get what they get.

You should really read the main article before joining the forum with your BS fountain.

I said I bought it solely for the purposes of reviewing, testing and finding out the truth first hand about the overheating issues.

You can apologise to me in your next post or you can fuck back out the door, up to you.

5 minutes ago, Leica50mm said:

Looks like an easy fix . 

Great!!

Leica50mm has the solution!

Let's hear it then...

[Adrian Bacon]

13 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Have a think if this kind of dishonesty is what you want to be seen to be defending.

All manufacturers marketing is designed to get you to part with as much money as possible, and therefore should never be taken at face value, which means that by definition it is a lie. I’m not defending it, just stating reality. It doesn’t matter if you like it or not. Every company does it in some form or another.

with respects to usage, canon pretty clearly laid out generic overheating record times to act as a guidepost. It’s up to the user to decide if that will fit into their intended usage or not, and/or conduct their own tests. I’m not seeing a foul on Canon’s part there.

again, just because it doesn’t do what you think it should doesn’t mean it’s a bad camera, it’s just not a good fit for your intended usage.

[zerocool22]

4 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Let’s do a petition on change.org for a fix from Canon. 
 

That might be a start, lets share the link and cross our fingers. I would love to see a "yes we are aware of the problem, and we are working on a solution" tweet/post by canon. 

[User]

No one should buy this camera. And those who do signal to Canon that what they've done is acceptable and to do it again... and again.

Dig you own grave with this one.

[zerocool22]

Just now, User said:

No one should buy this camera. And those who do signal to Canon that what they've done is acceptable and to do it again... and again.

Dig you own grave with this one.

Its gonna sell tons regardless for photography alone. Not buying this camera wont solve the R5's problems. But at this point I wont buy one, because of the overheating and also the price is too high atm.