ajay

Possible work-around from removing the button battery?

Horshack on the DP thread thinks that you can trick the camera by overriding the battery door switch and pulling out the battery. This prevents the camera from going into a normal shut-down and it loses its settings.

Something to try Andrew?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64283375

There once was a camera built on deceit
Who's video features were said to be sweet.
But amongst all the clamor,
Came Canon's Cripple Hammer,
And now we know it really doesn't overheat.

Another question, was the camera allowed to reach the ambient temperature of the fridge prior to powering on the camera? It would seem that the camera would need to be chilled for at least 2 hours before conducting the test. (The starting EXIF temperature reading should have been close to the temperature of the refridgerator prior to the start of the test.)

So...let me play the devil's advocate here and make sure nothing is being overlooked with Andrew's latest test:

• Do we know with absolute certainty that Canon is using the EXIF temperature data to determine when to shut down the camera? For example, what if there is a temperature sensor on the back of the sensor itself? That sensor is floating w/o a heat sink. It very well could overheat while the remainder of the camera stays warm but not hot.
• It appears wifi was enabled during the test. This typically generates more heat. Why did temperatures remain constant while wifi was operating. I would think they would rise even in a fridge. Again, are we missing some other temperature sensor in this camera other than what's being reported by EXIF data?
• Andrew states "Overheat control was turned off in the menus, as I find it makes little difference to video mode and shouldn’t be needed in a fridge."  I don't understand why this option was turned off. Why not give the camera every opportunity not to overheat when in stand-by mode?

Please note: I'm not trying to stir the pot here. Just trying to do a check-and-balances to make sure the test hasn't overlooked some other possibilities. Troubleshooting requires reducing the number of variables.

13 minutes ago, noone said:

What is this "tracking" thing of which you speak (in an A7s!)?  

Nah, I think I would be very very happy with the A7siii for tracking since its granddad can barely track a seated musician

I believe it has the same tracking as the A9, A9II, A7RIV and the newer crop-sensor cameras. Touch-to-track a subject. (Using the touch screen.) I wish the end of September would get here.

4 hours ago, noone said:

PB in the video between your and my post says eye AF is disabled in clearzoom.

I get that. But just like other Sony cameras using Clear Image Zoom, I would think (and hope) it will do some form of autofocus but w/o eye AF and no tracking.

10 hours ago, scotchtape said:

This doesn't work with the A7SIII as clear image zoom disables AF.

Are you sure about this? I had heard that it disables eye and tracking AF, but didn't disable AF completely.

52 minutes ago, Hangs4Fun said:

**WARNING**  For anyone who invested in those awesome Sony UHS-II G series cards like the SF-G128, SF-G64, SF-G32, they are currently NOT reporting themselves as V90 cards to the A7SIII (even though they clearly have the performance of a V90 card).  I brought this to Sony PRO Support today during a Zoom meeting, and proved that those cards generate the following error (currently) on the A7SIII:

Crap! That's what I have. Hopefully this will be resolved before I get my camera. Thanks for the info and if you don't mind, please be sure to let us know what you find out as far as a resolution to this. I'm also a PRO Support member. Maybe I will contact them as well.

Well...At least the variables are being whittled down. It's all part of the process of understanding the Canon cripple hammer.

The thing that is the most frustrating is that they created a camera that is mind-blowingly good and purposefully crippled it as to not compete with their cinema line.

The design was certainly intentional. They very easily could have used a similar design like the S1H to keep it from overheating but chose not to.

I don't know how you could file a claim against them however since they have publicly stated the camera's limitations. If they hid the limitations, yes you might have a case but since they told you before you bought it that it had limitations, they've covered their butt.

Yes. There appears to be multiple parameters being calculated for different modes. It's crazy that you can record externally and get the camera super hot, insert a CF Express chip and get a full record limits. It's got to be ignoring the internal temperature of the camera. Makes no sense at all.

Here's some info about the Delkin CFExpress Card regarding thermal throttling:

"Thermal Throttling

The purpose of thermal throttling is to prevent components in a SSD from over-heating during read and write operations. Delkin’s CFexpress is designed with an on-die thermal sensor and with its accuracy, firmware can apply different levels of throttling to achieve the purpose of protection efficiently and proactively via SMART reading."

5 minutes ago, mechanicalEYE said:

Sun burning scorching R5 camera shooting 4K HQ in 102 degrees with no cool down period, just inserted CFxpress card while recording externally, then turned off Ninja V, and R5 said full record limits were available in every desired mode. All that freezer for 11 hours talk is meaningless to me. Point is, I didn't need a freezer and the camera was so hot it could have melted cheese. 

 

Is it basing it's ability to shoot by reading the temperature of the CFxpress Card?

1 hour ago, Hanriverprod said:

People keep saying it can be easily corrected but I keep seeing that zombie yellow and that clinical radioactive green everywhere unless it's that overcorrected atrocious orange and teal that's become synonymous with sony and I say this as someone who has one of their cameras.

With any 10-bit camera (if you know what you are doing) you should have plenty of latitude to create just about any color scheme you want. All it takes is someone who knows what they are doing to create a LUT that matches the color you are hoping to achieve. I have to stress however that it takes someone who knows what they are doing. There is no doubt that straight out of the camera, skin colors do not have the magenta that Canon has that people have a tendency to like. It certainly is achievable however.

What I've mostly seen online so far with the A7SIII is mostly straight-out-of-camera looks. Gerald Undone has a new video up today that explains what most people do with their log footage. They attempt to add saturation and contrast and they think that's good enough. Well...it's not good enough.

40 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Shall I pack 10 cans per shoot or just 1?

Get a case of it.

In all seriousness, everyone so far has tried to cool the camera down externally and not internally. If you want to be absolutely, positively be sure that Canon is using the cripple hammer, it would be best to chill down the camera ASAP and retest record limits. Don't wait hours. Don't try putting it in the freezer. By getting the circuit boards chilled within minutes will give you a definitive answer to whether Canon is intentionally crippling the camera.

Do we know for sure there is only one temperature sensor in the camera? Maybe Canon is reading the temperature of a different component other than the one in your experiment.

I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but we need a secondary test to prove beyond a doubt that Canon is intentionally crippling this camera. This is truly a big deal.

Chilling the circuit boards directly and rapidly will prove this out.

(Last post on this. I don't mean to keep repeating this but I do feel it's important. I'm done.)

56 minutes ago, Phil Holland said:

Theoretically this has nothing to do with the CPU nor the Media (it gets warm and generates heat as well) even, but the accumulation of heat on the sensor itself, which I don't think Canon pushes out via metadata visible to us.  It would actually be very hard to monitor specific hot points where heat can do the most damage to the sensor short of taking the camera fully apart and investigating, but even that is a tough one as the guts would be exposed.

I imagine without active cooling this particular sensor with all photosites active likely at specific areas behind the sensor are the reason the cap is there, whether it's safe timer based situation or some sort of sensor driven fail safe.  The main reason for either of the caps would be to keep it from permanently damaging and/or inducing a degradation of reliability or image quality of the sensor not just in the short term, but long term use.

If it's a CPU related heat thing, I'd be pretty shocked.  But who knows.  Maybe it's a combination of it all.

There's lots of reason the more video minded cameras (C500 MK II) have active cooling and this is certainly one of them.

I thought that too at first but when testers were able to get the camera to run for extended periods using an external recorder, it made me believe the sensor temperature isn't the problem.

Another option not as drastic and would take longer to cool the camera down is to use a spray can of air duster. It also cools down when releasing the air. Again spraying it in the card slot would probably be the best place.

You can buy this stuff on Amazon here in the states:

https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Freeze-Electronic-Component-FR-777-777/dp/B000Z99ZCA/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&keywords=freeze+spray&qid=1597265368&sr=8-7

This will chill down the camera within seconds if you can get the nozzle near enough to the circuit boards. Through the memory card slot ought to do it.

I will try this one more time with another cooling idea to get to the bottom of this:

1. Get the camera to overheat. Have the back open with everything still connected. (Just enough to apply coolant spray.)
2. Use a can of freeze spray and chill down the components. (Better than a fan.)
3. Check again to see if the camera recovered or still shows an overheating condition.

If the camera still doesn't work and shows an overheating status, you know you've got some kind of firmware clock controlling the overall functionality of the camera.

If the camera works as if it had been off for two hours, then you know it truly is heat related and the camera  just takes a long time to cool down.

It's a simple test that should get to the bottom of this. All that's required is for someone to loosen some screws and slightly open the camera. Enough to get a spray can nozzle inside.

This should prove if Canon is playing games with the firmware.

Note: It might even be possible to spray the memory card slot (w/o the card) to cool the camera downs w/o taking out one screw. Somebody with the camera needs to pick up a can of freeze spray! (I used to do component level repair and we used this stuff all the time for heat-related problems.)

16 minutes ago, crevice said:

@Andrew Reid we are getting close with these tests, but I think the final way to test is what others have mentioned. We need to absolutely blast the R5 with cold air while the physical backing of the camera is removed and then placing the camera in a fridge/freezer/cooler the entire time. This would mean heat isn’t getting trapped inside and cold air is blasting the components. I would suggest no usage or recording at all before the test, so it’s a truly fresh start. Hit record, place it in an absolutely frigid condition with the back of the camera open, and we watch what happens. If it shuts down there is nothing else to explore - we have our answer once and for all. There is no way that a camera with its backing physically open, with cold air around 1-30 degrees reaching It’s components would overheat unless it’s software limitations. If you don’t own the R5 or don’t want to destroy yours, you could prob create a fund page and you’ll get enough money to fund an R5 for these specific and slightly destructive tests in less than 24 hours. A lot of people have eyes on you and not just on here, I have seen your tests mentioned on several Facebook groups, Twitter, etc. 

Totally agree. Who wants to test this??? Andrew???🤔

1 minute ago, Video Hummus said:

I think they might be open to litigation. The overheating icon on the screen, the increasing evidence that the overheating issue is bogus, the complete lack or care to mitigate heat inside the camera. They have some explaining to do.

I'm not a lawyer, but I find it difficult to believe that they could be open to litigation. They aren't harming anyone (other than messing with our heads) are they?

The best thing is to kick them in the pants by not buying their cripple-hammered products.

How about opening the back of the unit w/o disconnecting anything. Blow air across the inside of the camera using a small muffin fan and record as you normally would. The temperature should definitely stay cooler. Check run times and recovery times.

If it's crippled by firmware, times shouldn't change. If recovery times are drastically reduced, it is strictly their way of managing the temperature of the camera.

My guess is, it's probably both. But it would be interesting to see how a fan blowing directly on the components changes things.

What if they made an adjustment that gave you 45min of 4k HQ, 8k at 25min and4k 120p at 20min and recovery time at 60 minutes max. Would that be enough?

This is all kind of silly if they do. It would still be crippled and everyone would be trying to calculate if it would be usable or not.

Why are we even messing with Canon at this point? Not worth the frustration.

1 minute ago, Emanuel said:

  

Do we need anything new to already know it?

It will then be an admission by Canon themselves.

If they do increase the record limits, then we will have real proof this is a smoke and mirrors trick by Canon.