Jump to content

My Canon EOS R5 recording 8K video 50 minutes straight


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I paid 4900 euros for the camera and expected to be able to shoot at least 4K HQ with it as much as I can when placed preorder. I aknowledged that there could be problems with 8K video, but I was not

Posted Images

We need to make sure we use the word unreliable whenever referencing the Canon R5. Canon will try and ride this out - this firmware release makes that clear and they will continue to fall back on the "we were transparent about this" line.

But, one thing they pride themselves on is that they are perceived as a reliable, professional tool. If every blog post, video, comment. tweet etc empathises the unreliability of this camera (in various modes/situation), we have a greater chance of actual change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members
9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I think if we are going to put credits on stuff by the way, make sure to include @BTM_Pix

 

Shhhh....

I'm very much happy to be the Stuart Sutcliffe/Pete Best of this saga when you all get sued for inciting people to break their cameras 😉

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this on the ML forum regarding new firmware:

"I could record external in 4K HQ up to 3 1/2h untill the SSD was full, with cards in. 
So all external recording modes are absolutely usable.

The CFexpress card seems to produce most of the heat, when recording to SD card I got longer 8K IPB and 4K HQ times.
Looking at some exif data, the camera shuts down consistently at 60°C +/- 1

External cooling improves the recording significantly!"

and this from A1ex:

"Quick look at the R5 firmware update - apparently the same file format as on EOS R, but different encryption key. That means, I cannot look inside.

If our enhancements are still needed, it might be possible to enable the bootflag via UART (which requires access to a physical camera, and some familiarity with digital electronics). Assuming Canon didn't disable the UART port, of course."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members

By the by but giving out advance copies of the firmware to YouTube "influencers" to make videos of them testing it who didn't lift a leg to test or raise any objection to this issue in the first place is not a good look for Canon.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wuckfit99 said:

So is this new firmware not a small step forward (with maybe a small step sideways)?

Cards on the table, I'm a stills shooter with only a passing interest in video but use the interesting info and analysis in this forum and other sites to get an overall view of the camera performance.  At the risk of being accused of being a troll or Canon fanboy (I'm not but with 35k or so worth of gear I'm kind of locked in) I'm going to ask these questions - not with the intention of winding anyone up, just genuine interest.

What is it that you guys want to see Canon deliver into the video world with this camera? Are you content with recording limits and if so what should they be? Recovery times clearly are a huge issue here so what would be deemed to be acceptable (although as 'overheating' seems to be a bit of a misnomer I guess you could not unreasonably ask the question 'recovery from what').  Would (say) 30 mins 8k RAW/4k HQ record time with a 30 min recovery/countdown before you got another 30 mins be acceptable

Base the shutdown completely on temperature and no timer. This would allow external devices to help cool the camera and if you are working in indoor temperatures or cool outdoor temperatures you aren't punished for it.

If they did this, I'll bet most of the complaints would go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ajay said:

Base the shutdown completely on temperature and no timer. This would allow external devices to help cool the camera and if you are working in indoor temperatures or cool outdoor temperatures you aren't punished for it.

If they did this, I'll bet most of the complaints would go away.

I think the timer's purpose is two-fold in the overheating management algorithm. One is to provide the user with a degree of predictability so that they can decide whether a particular record mode will be usable for the situation at hand. The user can e.g. try 4K HQ and note that the record time is 4 min and then decide that it's safer to go with 4K regular to get the job done. If the overheat warning and shutdown are just reacting to the immediate temperature, then the user is not given any warning of the impeding ending of recording. 

 

The second reason is that heat damage depends on the duration of exposure to heat and not only the momentary absolute temperature value. Theoretically the algorithm can do the following: monitor (1) the current temperature at the three temperature sites, (2) the rate of change of the three temperatures, and (3) compare the past and current temperature history with the heat budget, (4) compare the immediate temperature with absolute limits, and (5) from the user's perspective the camera should try to deliver on the promised record time (even if temperature is rising faster than expected) and avoid a situation where the initial "promise" of a certain record time at the onset of recording is not achieved (so that the user can make educated decision of which mode to shoot in at the onset of recording). Based on these considerations it can then give the current estimate of record time left, and whether to give a warning or shut the camera down. 

 

Anyway, I am just considering this from a theoretical perspective and do not know how the algorithm actually works. The time element is an important consideration in instrument control systems and monitoring just one parameter momentarily would probably give quite erratic-appearing behavior. The temperature sensors also produce some noise so averaging the temperature can reduce that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wuckfit99 said:

I do wonder whether they've actually made the R5 so good they've had to find artificial ways to limit what it can do thus protecting other models in their line-up?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Davos said:

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, wuckfit99 said:

I do wonder whether they've actually made the R5 so good they've had to find artificial ways to limit what it can do thus protecting other models in their line-up?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The technology advances cover a temporal space bigger than multiple camera releases in the same series. This processor / sensor will be used  and further uncrippled in future models for sure. Remember how long those  18mpix sensor were in canon aps-c cameras and how many models they made out of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, wuckfit99 said:

I do wonder whether they've actually made the R5 so good they've had to find artificial ways to limit what it can do thus protecting other models in their line-up?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...