wuckfit99

After all the drama about the R5 I've surmised some things:
The "R" line is more of a toy for video than anything else. Time and time again we've seen the company push users to dedicated (and expensive) video solutions. Beggining with Canon's 5DM2 we lived through different models with some kind of video crippling: lower resolution, noisy mic inputs, and a hard recording limit. Despite all this, people bought a Canon DSLR for reliabilty and lens selection. Lens selection was adressed quickly for RF users with good and expensive glass. However, they are losing their "trustworthyness". The R5 wil NEVER replace the tank-like 5D. Never, not 5 or 10 years from now. The damage is done. Was it Canon's true intention to replace the 5D with the R5 by way of an "umbrella effect"? I'm having doubts. No manager worth his salt would have released this fiasco product. Especially not a Japanese one working at Canon. Not one that damn well knows the brand represents (boring) reliabilty. Maybe the "R" line is more of a "moonshot product". Aim high. Fail fast. Ride the mirroless wave, but always differenciate between the photo and cinema lines.

I updated the firmware this morning then repeated old external test.
Recorded 4K HQ externally for over an hour with no card in camera. 
After 1hr 16 minutes passed I stopped the external recording, and inserted CFexpress card.
Once the R5 booted back up the counter said 20 minutes. Showed 25 minutes after shut down for less than 5 minutes.
So it seems the external recording is still good.

I find it funny and sad that R5 owners have to be worried about Canon's firmware "update" disabling the workarounds users have figured out to make this thing somewhat usable.

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.

The blind zealotry of this place reminds me reduser. The first review Chris and Jordan posted has overheating in the title and is heavily highlighted in the video. *You* are the one spitting lies here.
 
This is forum is the *only* place I consistently see hate directed towards Chris and Jordan, who by most accounts are actually good guys. 
 
I’m all for making fun of the Northrups and all the types like that, but give me a break.

That seems to be the case, but its a head scratcher. I was set to go all in on the RF mount with the R5, and RF lenses aren't cheap. I bought a R and the RF 24-70/2.8, I was set to get the holy trinity. I'll never buy a C300 - ever - as I need portability and the photo capabilities, but I was set to spend $10k+ and likely get the R6 down the line. More people buying into the system in a steeply declining market is a good thing as the lens lineup continues to grow, shame Canon doesn't see it that way. 
Chris

I guess almost the same chipset of the R5 is going to be used in other higher end models (R1?) and some cinema camera's. Seeing how protective Canon now is, I'm not sure I'm willing to invest in RF glass and be stuck with Canon. At least with the EF glass, you can use Sony, Panasonic, Blackmagic, etc camera's.

From the tear down it appears Canon really didn't implement much physical temp reduction at all. Given as EA has proved on here you can run over an hour 8K with this hardware you might assume that's why they didn't bother to put more physical heat managment in - because they've essentially cracked it and want to protect the C line.

You don't even need to do a tear down to know Canon's intentions. Imagine if they would have designed this camera like the Panasonic S1H? They certainly could of but they didn't. I wonder why?