Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mandalorian

  1. 10 minutes ago, Django said:

    Not the least bit surprised. Canon went through all this trouble to cripple the camera, they weren't going to suddenly remove all those limitations. What they did is loosen the cripple leash a tiny bit, just in order to appear to be doing something in the right direction. I'm betting they'll be unlocking it little by little during the products life cycle. Expect decent HQ recording times in a year or two. Sad state of affairs for early adopters..

    Canon is never going to fully unlock the potential of the R5/R6 since they are going to upsell you on RF cine cameras, EF cine cameras or higher end (and more expensive) versions of the R series (R1) later on down the road.

    Canon deeply, down to their bones, believe in product segmentation. They think that if you want higher end features, be it photography or video features, you will need to pay for them, and they design their entire product line to reflect that.

  2. 3 minutes ago, visionrouge said:

    Thanks for sharing.
    It's look like they tweaked the recovery time and add new functionality to the infamous counter that now include the length of previous recording in the balance.
    If you shoot short clip,s you can shoot more of them (from 22 to 96 now in his testing)
    Recovery time is about 2 minutes wait for 1 minute recovery, or one minute wait for one minute recovery inside a fridge.
    Still a bit far from the graph I can see on this post threat. Recovery temperature look way faster than this.

    Bye the way; 0 apology from Canon so far.
    The best sentence is:
    "We have and will continue to be transparent about recording limits for the EOS R5" 😂

    Like you can't shoot any HQ mode after 60 picture during an hour inside a fridge...
    Transparency? Please Canon, let me know where in your manual you explain this?

    The max recording time is reset if you remove the battery cause we don't check temperature at boot but be assured we are very conservative on temperature management.


    They should just be up front and call them record time limits.

    Pretending that it is an "overheating" issue is just insulting but I guess Canon think they can get away with it...and maybe they are right.

  3. 1 hour ago, horshack said:

    Let's hope Canon was already too far along in the testing/release cycle to plug the battery-pull hack in this V1.1.0 release.

    This V1.10 firmware is a joke, and I wouldn't be surprised if future firmware "updates" patch the current hacks that work to extend recording time.

    3 minutes ago, hoodlum said:

    Jordan also did some firmware comparisons.



    The firmware gives you a little more time but doesn't really extend the record times by much. It varies from 5 to 10 minutes depending on recording resolution and codec.

    Disappointing to say the least.

  4. 41 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

    Just tried this as well.

    It does forget the aperture because it didn't write it to NVRAM in time if you pull the battery quite quickly - I tried after about 10 seconds, with the battery door open and a small screw lodged in the pin to force the camera into ON state even with door open.

    It does not forget the timers

    That seems to work off a separate clock to the main date / time and is constantly ticking away like a quartz powered by the button cell.

    One solution I wish the Chinese guy had tried is to permanently remove the internal battery and see if the recovery timer is reset every time you reboot without it.

    It would be annoying to be kept asking to input date and time on every startup though.

    Also, even if pulling out the battery backup works, it would be annoying to have to turn the camera off, and back on again, every 20 minutes to reset the cripple clock...and then on top of that have to re-enter the date and time/zone every time like it was a first time setup of the camera (not to mention it would forget all of your custom settings).

  5. I suspect that even with all the negative publicity due to the R5/R6 "overheating" being found out to be mostly fake, Canon is still not going to "fix" the problem since Canon always wanted the higher end video options of the R5/R6 to be crippled.

    Sure, they will probably release a firmware that will modestly increase the record times for the higher end video modes so that they can at least pretend that the issue is "fixed", and they will probably spout some line like "Well, we need the record limits to prevent sensor damage, blah, blah, blah..."

    But the higher end video options will always be crippled on the R5/R6 since they have RF Cine cameras and 8K Cine cameras coming out soon that need to sell, and they sure as hell don't want the R5/R6 eating into those sales at all.

  6. 39 minutes ago, Cliff Totten said:

    Is modifying a product that belongs to you illeagle?

    How many things that we buy and then make changes to? People modify computers and electronic equipment every day.

    Could you imagine if Dell tried to sue you for modifying your laptop hardware? Could you imagine Ford suing you for modifying your engine...etc....etc.

    If you own it, it no longer belongs to the campany that made it. Its your thing and you can screw it up all you want.

    Not illegal but would void the warranty. At that point, they wouldn't be liable for any repairs or warranty claims. 

    As for Magic Lantern, not sure what is going on there. I guess Canon could make an intellectual infringement case against them if they wanted to since they are developing software that significantly modifies their products without obtaining a license from them to do so.

  7. 5 minutes ago, Cliff Totten said:

    Andrew....do you know the "Magic Lantern" guys? Do you know how to contact or reach out to them?

    I would literally bet my life that they are very interested in this R5 mess. 

    If you want to upset Cannot and REALLY ring their bell, get some dialog going with ML and REALLY start a fire here....

    If Cannot has not yet encrypted their firmware, could you imagine ML reversing all these cripples in firmware? Maybe It could be just as easy as taking timer values in lines of code and replacing them with high values like "99999" or something of that sort.

    Cannot doesnt fear bad R5 press....but they DO absolutely fear somebody circumventing their carefully chosen marketing strategies and tactics!

    I think Canon has sent some behind the scenes "cease and desist" letters to Magic Lantern because they haven't released a firmware update since July 2018 and the last camera they had significant software for was the 5DmkIII.

  8. 4 minutes ago, Cliff Totten said:

    If this R5 firmware is not encrypted carefully and this thing gets "cracked" and becomes virtually limitless? If everything that Cannot has done, every measure they have made to cripple it....is reversed?

    This will terrify Cannot management more than any negative press that the R5 can ever have. If the cap comes off and the genie escapes? The R5 will run wild in places that Cannot desperately does NOT want it to ever be used.

    Cannot has a very "specific" intention for the R5 and they have worked soooo hard to keep it inside that box.

    It absolutely must stay there. They might make the box a bit larger soon but not by much.

    No doubt Canon will say that modding the firmware/hardware will void your warranty, and they probably will develop ways to make sure to deny repair claims on modded cameras (such as soldering the backup battery on future R5's so that mods can easily be detected).

    Realistically, Canon should just have been up front about the time limits instead of inventing this ridiculous overheating issue and expecting people to just buy it.


  9. Jeez, this is really embarrassing for Canon.

    If they wanted to limit the higher end features, they should have just been up front with the software time limits.

    But no, they wanted the marketing sheet of the R5 to be that it is an "8K camera" but not for it to actually compete with the 8K cameras that have coming out in the EOS Cinema line soon.

    Really slimy.

  10. 1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

    The sad fact is that it's easier and cheaper for Canon to fix this problem with more marketing, rather than a recall.

    But we customers should remember such ethics and consider whether we want to be giving our money to a company that treats us in this manner.

    Peter McKinnon's last video on the EOS R5 was called:

    "Filmed this entire EOS R5 Video without it overheating..."

    And he's now been silent on the issue for a month, despite all the new revelations.

    So whenever somebody comes on here to defend Peter and others like him.

    Just remember where their loyalties really lie.

    To themselves and to the corporate entities.

    It isn't with you.

    Yeah, Peter McKinnon has been real silent on the overheating issue lately.

    In fact, he is back to using the 1-DX Mk III as his daily vlog camera, and not an R5 in sight. 

    Realistically, since he is paid by Canon, he will never be an impartial reviewer and shouldn't ever be treated as such.


  11. 6 minutes ago, Wild Ranger said:

    That's whats I was thinking. Nobody (more even youtubers) will care if the camera "had issues".

    The problem is I don't think Canon is going to "fix" the issue since it was never really a problem for them.

    They probably intended to cripple the higher end video modes but got carried away.

    Canon Rumors is reporting that the rumored firmware is going to do the following:

    • Addition of Cinema RAW light option to 8K recording
    • Addition of CLog 3
    • Increased record time limits (but don’t expect a huge boost)
    • Various bug fixes

    They are probably going to increase the record times to match the stated record limits that they published but not much more.

    The R5/R6 still won't be great for hybrid shooters since the published record limits were really short.


  12. https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-eos-r5-firmware-update-coming-soon-raw-light-to-be-added-cr2/

    ^A firmware update is coming soon, but according to the rumor it will add "Increased record time limits (but don’t expect a huge boost)".

    My guess is Canon intended to cripple the R5/R6 higher end video modes but got carried away. They probably intended to give the R5/R6 the published record times for higher end video modes (and nothing more), but didn't fully optimize the firmware cripple since such things are a bit hard to get right if you are in a rush to release the cameras.

    If this "firmware fix" that Canon rolls out only allows for the published record times and nothing more, then I still think the R5/R6 will be terrible for hybrid shooters.

    Moreover, we shouldn't be supporting a company that is so clearly crippling its products all in the name of product segmentation.

  13. 9 minutes ago, Adrian Bacon said:

    It’s not a professional video camera. If it were, Canon would have released it under their Cinema line. They didn’t. they provided some basic recording limits information if using the higher end video features so people don’t run out and buy it thinking that it’s a replacement for a real cinema camera. 

    personally, I’m more interested in seeing how the standard 4K stacks up against their 4K Cine cameras.  If the Image quality difference is negligible, then the higher end video features are nice to haves, and can possibly be improved upon With firmware, but ultimately unnecessary to get a job done if looking to match other canon cinema cameras.

    For all we know, there’s an RF mount Cine version of this camera in the pipe and the cripple hammer is Still in full effect

    There are (rumored) RF cine cameras coming out, but if Canon could fix this overheating issue with a firmware fix, but doesn't then I don't see how anyone in good conscience could buy the R5 or R6.

    These cameras are clearly being marketed as hybrid cameras. Canon could leave in the 30min continuous record limit to create some market segmentation.

    However, firmware crippling the R5 & R6 to such a degree that they are unusable except for very short clips is unconscionable.

  14. 25 minutes ago, crevice said:

    Some of these comments are just hard to fathom. These comparison on spec sheet vs spec sheet are getting a little out of control. The C300 absolutely destroys the A7s3. One is a cinema camera, the other is a small mirrorless. The R300 at $6,299 Is a steal. I’m assuming people here have never used a canon cinema camera, because visually and ergonomically, it’s night and day. Add XLR, ND filter, better color, better actual DR (not spec sheet DR), a cooling fan, etc. On top of that the new sensor in the c300 is absolutely fantastic. Not everything can be compared in a spec sheet. There are phones that do 4K 60 and they still look like a phone shot the footage. An A7s3 is great for what it is, but it is not a cinema camera 

    I guess it depends on whether this rumored R300 is just a box or if it comes with everything the C300 has as well (except RAW): an adjustable touch monitor, a handle, full size XLRs, HDMI/SDI ports, internal NDs, plenty of customizeable buttons, etc.

    If it is just a box, then at $6,299.00 it is now competing with the RED Komodo (which is around $6,000.00 for the black colored version).

    I guess we will get more details as time goes on.

  15. Shame.

    These updated rumors sound a lot less tempting than the earlier one.

    Looks like the R200 at $3,499.00 will be severely handicapped and the R300 will the better one, but at $6,299.00 USD it is a bit too steep in price for something that essentially just matches the specs of the A7sIII but isn't Full Frame or has IBIS and has an RF mount and internal NDs.

  16. Since Sony is using the camera body as a heat sink, putting on a cage should help since less of the body would be exposed to direct sunlight.

    Will have to test it out once these cameras start being delivered. I have seen some people shooting video in the sun with no problems.

  17. This would be an interesting move for Canon.

    I guess they are starting to feel threatened by the Z-Cams and the upcoming Red Komodo.

    With these specs, though, they are kind of undercutting their brand new C300mkIII. My guess is there will be some form of cripple they are going to implement to protect their C300mkIII.

    Also, the 4K 120p RAW to an external recorder: what recorders can take Canon RAW up to 120p?

  18. What I don't get is why they didn't put in some form of passive cooling system into the R5 and R6?

    Thin copper heat sink, thermal pad on the processor, water poof vents, etc...this doesn't cost much and would greatly improve recording times.

    They must have know about the thermal limitations since the have a very detailed chart listing the estimated record times, so they must have tested every codec and record option.

    Either they were ok with the limitations and thought they would get a pass or they screwed up and didn't really think through the design and just needed to put something out to stem the bleeding in the mirrorless segment.

    Not sure at this point.

  19. 14 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

    Which is a good result. So what made Dan Watson test give different results?

    Dan goes into it in the comments.

    He mentions he had problems with selecting the "High" setting on temperature setting on the A7sIII and then using it. Mentions he reached out to Sony to see if maybe it was a problem with his unit.

    We really need more tests and for people to be clear about what settings and if the test is from a cold start.

  • Create New...