TeamSpeed wrote:
Yes, indeed everything is packed in there and not engineered in a way to allow circulation of air through the components. I think the R5 is even more packed than the R, based on the tear down. It's a shame they couldn't have found a different place to run that very small pcb, even if they had to break it into two PCBs with a cable. It also doesn't help that the CF Express slot with its aluminum housing is sitting right next to the processor/ram as well, just adding more heat to that area, or at least preventing a temp differential that could help pull the heat out. ...Show more →
Its possible that they could wrap some additional copper or aluminum from the cpu / ram directly to the body still. As designed it is basically insulated from cooling.
Bernie_King wrote:
I'm sorry, but the more I read about this the more it appears to be software driven. The fact that you can run HQ 4k60 for 4 hours without a thermal shutdown on a ninja speaks volumes. Also, after shooting HQ 4K or 8K and getting a thermal shutdown, how is it that the camera can still handle standard 4K FF or Oversampled Crop 4K30 until the end of time? Isn't the camera hot? Also the fact that you can't cool the camera down faster using any means?
Running the signal from the sensor out through the HDMI port simply isn't nearly as intensive as it is to record the data into internal buffers, run the video format (like CLOG) on the images and construct the video file. That is very CPU/RAM intensive, and thus increased heat, not including the heat of the CF Express when it is storing the files.
If you look at the differences between HDMI and actually constructing and recording a video file, it is pretty clear why just running an HDMI signal out to an external monitor or recorder can be more efficient on processor usage and reduced heat. That would generate just as much heat as just leaving the camera on with the EVF and no recording taking place, for the most part, because whether you are piping the video output to the EVF or HDMI, it is very similar in nature.
You can't cool down the innards very well due to how all the layers of that "onion" are put together. The teardown shows very little space between any component, and you have PCBs stuck together, with the main processor sandwiched between RAM and circuit boards. The camera simply needs to be made bigger to accommodate more space and ability to run a 10mm recirc. fan and/or run thermal pads to the mag frame, or electronics have to continue to shrink.
rear panel | LCD controller/Button pads | PCB | Main board/ram/processor | IBIS/sensor board, surrounded by EVF module dual card slots board and so on.
There just isn't any room in the current body to even place a 10mm fan, unless there is room somewhere around the battery compartment in the grip.
Bernie_King wrote:
I'm sorry, but the more I read about this the more it appears to be software driven. The fact that you can run HQ 4k60 for 4 hours without a thermal shutdown on a ninja speaks volumes. Also, after shooting HQ 4K or 8K and getting a thermal shutdown, how is it that the camera can still handle standard 4K FF or Oversampled Crop 4K30 until the end of time? Isn't the camera hot? Also the fact that you can't cool the camera down faster using any means?
Interesting that the oversampled crop mode is super 35, just like the Cinema line. Wouldn't the R5 outperform the others without these limitations?
On a positive note, those who call standard 4k unusable should watch this video:
Apparently with a few tweaks in post you can get these files almost as good as HQ.
Canon needs to fix the software problem. I think their biggest problem now is the explanation!...Show more →
That video is interesting. I wonder how long it takes to render a file to do the sharpening? Does it add a lot of time to the work flow? It does seem to indicate a firmware revision might be able to up the quality of the lower level 4k video of the R5. As for a firmware revision helping the 8k and 4k HQ modes, this one might be problematic. My guess is the internal recording puts more stress on the processor and I/O system which generates a lot of heat. Sort of like a CPU in a computer uses a lot more watts of power (i.e. produces more heat) when under a load. Maybe they can make the software more efficient in this regard but probably not by leaps and bounds. I bet Canon is working overtime on a substantial firmware update for the R5 and R6.
TeamSpeed wrote:
There just isn't any room in the current body to even place a 10mm fan, unless there is room somewhere around the battery compartment in the grip.
I watched a tear down video of the R5 and it is tight in there. I also was wondering if Canon did any efforts to see if they could make the body slightly deeper and and use a cooling tube like we see in smartphones. Maybe tie it into a metal bottom plate to dissipate heat. They could directly attach the other end to the processor. I can't see why this couldn't be done in a camera when it is done in a slim, small smartphone very effectively. This would also facilitate mounting a larger heat sink on the camera bottom using a thermal substance between them to improve heat transfer. It would be interesting to know if this was considered and what might have happened to make it unfeasible if they did.
True, there is probably just enough room to do that now. If anything, maybe the body could be taller instead of deeper even, but 5mm. I doubt we would all be worked up over a 5mm increase in height, especially if it provides cooling capabilities. I would run the cooling tube down to the bottom plate, where it would presumably be cooler than the top (sun hitting top vs shadows on the bottom).
Plus then you could build a cooling base or use a laptop cooler to put the camera on to help the cooling along.
If this is legit, That tilta fan probably wouldn’t work well. I had a feeling it was all software related, 6 hours later and still not full recovery times. That’s different a software timer
J.Marcus Photo wrote:
If this is legit, That tilta fan probably wouldn’t work well. I had a feeling it was all software related, 6 hours later and still not full recovery times. That’s different a software timer
Hopefully, Roger Cicala of Lens Rental's will do a "tear-down" of the R5, as he did with the "R"; as it would be interesting to get his "take" on the issue.
Following this thread. J. Marcus is the real deal so if he complains, I listen.
I'm not a videographer and I think it would be silly to get the R5 as a video camera. But I would probably shoot the way J. does... photos first, with some great footage and slo-mo as well. Sounds like something needs to be fixed with the "cooldown times "and "countdown times".
Nobody thought 4K120 was coming to mirrorless any time soon and Canon was the first to do it. But at the same time, I'm kind of that Canon didn't put 120 as an option for 1080 for the R5. They announced they are considering that in the next firmware, but didn't realize this was something people wanted. . I honestly loved my R but 1080-120 is what I missed... I don't have the money to buy cards to store huge 4K120 videos right now.
The R5 is a beast of a photo camera, with lots of potential as a hybrid (more than a crippled 12 MP camcorder). It appears Canon just has to tweak some things ,so let's hope they do. With covid, and Sony paying people to hold Canon ransom with malware, things must be super tough over there right now.
I sold my R last week, and I'm patiently waiting to see what unfolds. The R5 is still better than the other options out there (and I think brand jumping is silly), but it can be so much more I think.
I also agree that I also don't think external temps is the biggest issue, as the R5 doesn't seem to be affected by external temps much, unlike cameras like the Sonys or the Fujis. It seems to be more of a software limit (though not "crippling" as people expect, but more perhaps to protect the hardware as Canon has always been more conservative than say Sony when it comes ti things like this).
I'm excited to see what J. Marcus can do when (if?) things get tweaked by Canon.
drisley77 wrote:
The R5 is a beast of a photo camera, with lots of potential as a hybrid (more than a crippled 12 MP camcorder). It appears Canon just has to tweak some things ,so let's hope they do. With covid, and Sony paying people to hold Canon ransom with malware, things must be super tough over there right now.
I can tell from your three posts you're going to be a real objective voice on these forums.
PicGuy wrote:
I watched a tear down video of the R5 and it is tight in there. I also was wondering if Canon did any efforts to see if they could make the body slightly deeper and and use a cooling tube like we see in smartphones. Maybe tie it into a metal bottom plate to dissipate heat. They could directly attach the other end to the processor. I can't see why this couldn't be done in a camera when it is done in a slim, small smartphone very effectively. This would also facilitate mounting a larger heat sink on the camera bottom using a thermal substance between them to improve heat transfer. It would be interesting to know if this was considered and what might have happened to make it unfeasible if they did....Show more →
They could have but they made the decision not to increase the size of the body. From a different perspective that could have been on purpose. If a larger body could have solved the issue then why bother releasing cinema cameras? That would not surprise me and I don't have a problem with it. It's their company. If someone doesn't like it no one is forcing them to buy it.
I'm not saying that would have been the only reason to keep it small but it would be one way to legitimate way protect their cinema line. They would also have to consider the competition and would the general public prefer a body smaller or larger body.
drisley77 wrote:
The R5 is a beast of a photo camera, with lots of potential as a hybrid (more than a crippled 12 MP camcorder). It appears Canon just has to tweak some things ,so let's hope they do. With covid, and Sony paying people to hold Canon ransom with malware, things must be super tough over there right now.
Poefolk wrote:
I can tell from your three posts you're going to be a real objective voice on these forums.
It's rather farfetched that Sony is behind the hacking of Canon USA.
Got my Ninja V yesterday evening. Within 15 minutes I had it atop the R5 running 4kHQ video without having to consult the manual. Really impressive interface. I'm not a video guy, and I've never used an external monitor before. This company is impressive.
So it took a 2 hour video of my (bad) dog napping before my spouse made me stop "making the dog self-conscious." The only evidence of heat was the fan coming on and off occasionally from the monitor. The footage quality is weirdly good. I don't know if you all have seen results from an 8k sensor squishing video into a 4k format on the fly. It's eye-opening.
I'm a 99 percent stills guy, but now I have this honking video camera secret identity, and it's starting to make me think about creative stuff I can do with it.
I understand that people assumed (due to precedent) that there wouldn't be heat time limits, and that's disappointing, but I can't imagine a better hybrid camera at this point in the tech continuum. I do events occasionally, and I anticipate I'll try out having one R5 with the external recorder and the 28-70 f/2, and the other with the 70-200.
The waveform and other display doohickeys are huge fun. The R5 is actually dragging this stills guy into video due to the sheer gaping, yawning chasm of capability it has that I never had access to before. Love the Kangaroo "skippy" icon too.
These overheating issues will not be resolved by firmware updates.
You might get a bit more record time with firmware updates but the fundamental issue here is the design and thermal layout and other shenanigans Canon may be upto.
Both these cameras had enormous potential but Canon blew it for reasons that aren't yet clear. It does appear to verging on scandalous.
Since the Processor, even with less than ideal heat dissipation, can "hold it's own" when bypassing the Memory cards to an external device; it would seem conclusive, that it's close proximity to the Card slot's / & "hot" card/s elevate the Processor temp beyond it's safe limits.
If that's the case, it could only be resolved with some degree of physical modification.
Zenon Char wrote:
They could have but they made the decision not to increase the size of the body. From a different perspective that could have been on purpose. If a larger body could have solved the issue then why bother releasing cinema cameras? That would not surprise me and I don't have a problem with it. It's their company. If someone doesn't like it no one is forcing them to buy it.
I'm not saying that would have been the only reason to keep it small but it would be one way to legitimate way protect their cinema line. They would also have to consider the competition and would the general public prefer a body smaller or larger body. ...Show more →
Canon has a long history of segmenting their products. Heat tubes are used in smartphones and they don't impact the thickness or size of them. I doubt adding a heat tube(s) would have any discernible impact on camera dimensions. Probably just a few millimeters. From the tear down, it looks like Canon did very little to dissipate heat from the processor/memory etc. I find it mind boggling that with all the R&D that went into this camera that Canon ignored heat management to such a large extent. Unless it was intentional which would be a marketing disaster for Canon. If this proves to be another gimping on Canon's part there will be hell to pay. Especially on a camera that costs nearly $4kUSD.
PicGuy wrote:
Canon has a long history of segmenting their products. Heat tubes are used in smartphones and they don't impact the thickness or size of them. I doubt adding a heat tube(s) would have any discernible impact on camera dimensions. Probably just a few millimeters. From the tear down, it looks like Canon did very little to dissipate heat from the processor/memory etc. I find it mind boggling that with all the R&D that went into this camera that Canon ignored heat management to such a large extent. Unless it was intentional which would be a marketing disaster for Canon. If this proves to be another gimping on Canon's part there will be hell to pay. Especially on a camera that costs nearly $4kUSD....Show more →
Maybe it didn't make enough of a difference to add the additional cost. If they had gotten 35 minutes instead of 25 would people had been happier?
Zenon Char wrote:
Maybe it didn't make enough of a difference to add the additional cost. If they had gotten 35 minutes instead of 25 would people had been happier?
It’s not about the 25 or 35 minutes. It’s about the 2 hours of cool down time. Its about having 0 minutes if you take photos for an hour.
Personally my thoughts were to use this camera for both stills and video. When I shoot video, 99% of the time shooting 4k @120p. Why? Wildlife and birds. It really is a great way to catch the moment. I currently use a Z Cam for this.
The bottom line is that no external recorder at present records 4k@120p. This makes the camera unusable for what I do and even if an external recorder would record at 4k@120p, it would make things kludgy while working outdoors.
It's really too bad about the R5. My hopes have been shattered. Leaning towards the A7SIII at this point.
Zenon Char wrote:
Maybe it didn't make enough of a difference to add the additional cost. If they had gotten 35 minutes instead of 25 would people had been happier?
Use of heat tubes to dissipate heat is a proven, effective technology to remove heat from electronic devices that are compact. Smartphones, laptops, tablets etc. all use them to great effect. I see no reason Canon couldn't do the same regarding heat producing components in their cameras that are soldered to PCBs. The sensor is different since it is moving. As for cost, these tubes are mass produced in a huge number of configurations. I doubt it would have added more than a few dollars to the cost. Especially on a nearly $4k device. They are installed in $200 smartphones.
that Canon didn't put 120 as an option for 1080 for the R5. They announced they are considering that in the next firmware, but didn't realize this was something people wanted. 
. I honestly loved my R but 1080-120 is what I missed... I don't have the money to buy cards to store huge 4K120 videos right now. 