Mandalorian

I don't think there is anyway out of the Canon/Sony duopoly nightmare scenario.
They are the only two major companies even making money anymore:
https://fstoppers.com/originals/covid-devastation-financial-results-sony-wins-canon-holds-nikon-way-out-516408
Everyone else will become a niche player (like Fuji, Panasonic & Leica) or go out of business (like Olympus and soon Nikon).
 
 

The R5 was primed to be near perfect - on paper it had everything people wanted for a reasonable price and then Canon went and throttled it.
So instead they offer this, “a proper video camera” with essentially the same form factor but smaller sensor, no ibis, no viewfinder, and looks like no flip screen?
So you’re paying $2,000 more for what? Built in NDs and the permission to use the camera without it locking down due to “overheating”?
I’m curious what about this C70 is better than what the R5 should have been?

https://www.canonrumors.com/here-is-the-canon-cinema-eos-c70/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+canonrumors%2Frss+(Canon+Rumors)
 
No wonder they didn't want the EOS R5 to go the extra mile.
They had this to flog us.
Who's got a spare $6K?

As someone said in another thread, as of this moment the 1DXM3 is the company's flaghship photo camera for video, not some MILC feature-happy product. That's logical: 1DXM3 is worth $6,500!

It's just that Canon knew they couldn't get away with overheating bullshit on the 1D X M3 which is sold on the premise of cast iron reliability to news organisations, sports photographers, agencies and journalists.

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.

Cripple Hammer Live Cam when Canon read about people using workarounds for their cunning plan.

Canon is now marketing it as the best TiKToK camera ! Smart guys (not)

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.
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.

Someone suggested that the overheat icon should be changed with a middle finger on a future firmware... I love this idea!🖕
 

After this firmware update, we've got a good indicator that Canon is not going to open this camera up for any serious video work. It's really meant for casual video work in which a hybrid shooter may want to get a few nice video clips.
From a video perspective, there's no way would I use this camera for any serious, professional work.
I've 100% made up my mind to stick with Sony for what I do. I thought I might go back to Canon and use the R5 for both my stills and video work but I've seen enough from Canon to know that they have not changed their tune.
So...A9 for stills, A7SIII for video. Onwards!

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.


 

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.

EOSHD tabs in his browser...

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.

Maybe Canon will sell one time overheating timer reset voucher codes in the future 😂

Give Canon credit for creativity. There was much speculation of how this one might be crippled.
Canon said "Hold my sake".

"Math Class" on Baidu now has extensive infrared thermometer readings of the camera's mainboard with the back off, showing they correspond closely to the temperature reported in the EXIF data and don't rise above 64C. His next finding is that if you remove the internal battery it resets the so-called overheating limitations. So who is telling the truth now, Canon?
You can view the most recent findings here by the user "Math Class" (Google translated)
Read the full article on EOSHD:
https://www.eoshd.com/8k/removing-internal-battery-resets-eos-r5-overheat-timer-are-canons-pants-now-completely-down/

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.
 

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.
 

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.

Focus instead on being productive? With his R5? Talk about irony.
Don't focus on equipment? Looks like he didn't take his own advice given the vast majority of his videos are about - equipment. Actually he'd rather you didn't focus on the fact he pushed the R5 like a champ with McKinnon then ended up with egg on his face when it turned out it was a total dud.
Instead, he's now saying focus on telling stories, use stock clips and completely coincidentally mentions story blocks - for all your stock footage needs. Use coupon code 'matti' for 10% off - thanks story blocks!
Total shill. Total joke.
 
 

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.

It doesn't matter what they say, all their fanboys will defend them even though it's obvious they want to protect their rumored C-series cameras with what is almost certainly the same sensor and capabilities.  It's so obvious why it's crippled... They basically don't have to do anything, they're #1 in Japan, they don't care what you or I think. 
They're probably selling R5's like hot cakes, and even if they don't, they're selling enough of them to reduce the sensor costs for the C-series cameras and increase their margins, so it's win win win for them.
Just look at some of the responses on the forum, people willing to frankenstein a $4K camera in 2020 because it's a canon, who would probably previously make fun of your solutions to cool down a $1,500 A6500 from 2016.

Canon could have released a EOS R5 to compete against Sony A7R IV... for stills.
It has the slightly soft 4K pixel binned mode like the Sony does, but in 10bit.
That's not too shabby.
Then, release an EOS R5 C, with all the video bells and whistles enabled and properly functional.
For some strange reason they decided to go full beans with the 8K RAW and 4k 120p only to not let us use them! Marketing tick boxes only!
Why bother engineering these features if they are not going to be usable by the intended customers?
And how in any way would a mirrorless camera cannibalise sales of a $15,000 full frame C500?