The point is, the fan cooling unit does not need to be open to the rest of the camera. It can be a separate, ‘open’ chamber (or sealed with a membrane), on the back of a heat sink (solid metal).
Upvote
0
Confirmed: Canon EOS R5c to be announced next month [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Impeller pumps are fans that work when submerged. Ever had a fish tank? There’s one in my cat’s water fountain, too.
Upvote
0
I've read that most of the heat generated comes from the memory cards, rather than from the sensor or processor(s). So perhaps the engineering problem that needs to be solved, is how to extract heat from the cards. Attaching a heat sink directly to a removable card might be problematic.
Upvote
0
Ah, so you’re suggesting the back of the heat sink (the radiating part) crosses the boundary of the weather sealed core, then the fan can be in the non-weather sealed region. Makes sense.
Upvote
0
It's ludicrous considering that Sony and Panasonic have hybrid cameras that cost less than the R5 that also have weather sealing and no record limits.
As far as I'm concerned the R5 isn't a hybrid camera, for video work it's a glorified toy.
Also, as I said in my first comment it costs Canon nothing to remove the record limit. It's only there to upsell customers to other cameras and is an awful practice that should be called out.
Regarding adding a Ninja, why should I pay more for additional hardware/batteries just to get a feature that should already be there? That's insane and says to me that you're willing to throw money at a problem that Canon intentionally caused in order to get you to spend more money. So... I guess Canon's plan worked on you.
Sure, I get that...
...but the recording time limit is a "comprise" that Canon arbitrarily forces on the user. It costs them nothing to remove that limitation. There's no extra hardware or R&D to make that happen.
The "feature" of unlimited recording time already exists on competitors cameras in both the R5's price bracket and lower price brackets.
It's intellectually dishonest of you to say that the lack of unlimited record time is a "compromise" when it costs Canon literally nothing to remove it. Don't defend their shady business tactics.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
C-log 2 would be great but easier to edit video codecs will be the most important feature for me. Just smooth and easy to edit for the majority of users and people will love it.
Upvote
0
Okay, yes, these have no recording limit. But otherwise they are far far far far away from the feature set the R5 got.
All of these have SIGNIFICANT less megapixel. which does matter to a lot of photographers.
All of these got no 8k, no 4k120 (or am I mistaken?), no external nor internal raw video at all (maybe the lumix does?). The a6600 doesnt even have a fullframe sensor and the lumix S5 doenst have any usable autofocus.
All of these are great cameras, especialy at the pricepoint. And yes, you are correct, they do offer unlimited recording. But so does the iPhone or any cheap camcorder for 500 bugs.
Yes, Canon could include unlimited recording and they should. But this comparison is in my opinion realy far off.
The only cameras with the same features, resolution and speed in photo AND video mode, are the Nikon Z9 and the a1. Both cost over 6k currently
And its worth pointing out that you can record unlimited in ANY mode with an external recorder with the R5. Even in 8k raw (!), in 4k HQ or in 4k60. In my experience a monitor is for serious video work a must have. So the Ninja V can easily solve this problem - with prores, prores raw, h.265, with external power if needed, with extra audio layers, timecode, directly to an SSD.
But of course you are right, it would be better if Canon would remove this limit in the camera so we would not need additional gear =)
Upvote
0
ok, thats true, I missed that. In that regard its totaly true.
Though I think the comparison is off. These are great cameras, but got much less features, especialy in the photo department (much lower megapixel count, much slower, no usable autofocus, no 8k, no 4k120, no raw video...)
So yes, its certainly possible and cant be a problem for canon to remove this limitation. But the comparison is not quite fair =)
Upvote
0
Sorry, but this is a bit harsh, dont you think?
I use the R5 for both every day. I agree that its certainly more at home in the photo-department. Given the micro hdmi input its obvious that video was maybe not the first priority.
But saying its a toy is over the top. If we look at the specs its pretty obviously a serious tool.
It offers 8k raw. And external prores RAW without recording limit.
4k60 and 5k60 clog prores raw externaly
4k30 oversampled from 8k which looks STUNNING in 4:2:2 clog1 and clog3.
4k120 which looks excellent.
All these modes are qualitywise excellent and just as good as the competition.
Paired with ibis and one of the best AF systems, all inside a small body which works great on gimbals, drones or handheld.
You can add an atomos for additional sound recording options.
All these specs are hardly found in many other fullframe hybrid cameras. Actualy only the Nikon z9 and Sony a1 (which are both way more expensive) got the same features. Another option is the Sona a7s IV which is certinaly a more rounded video camera, but with 12mp a bit lacking on the pohotography side. Other option may be the Lumix S1H, which is missing a usable AF system.
Only thing I miss is a better audio interface. but given the size its hard to implement and comparable models are not much better. The R5c will adress this with the hotshoe interface. The R5 even got timecode over hdmi and peaking.
The record limit and the micro hdmi port are hardly big enough points to say the R5 is a toy when it comes to video. Especialy since you get 8k raw, 4k120 internaly and 5k60 raw out of it.
Upvote
0
I don't know. Move to Sony, I guess? Again, I don't disagree that others don't have more video features on a stills-based body. I also agree with the 30 min recording limit being disappointing. What you have failed to address is the very nature of "hybrid" that I previously raised, because you didn't counter what I said with any real shooting scenarios, just brochure bullet points. I will state again - a shooter who routinely needs to shoot long format video would be better served by owning/renting a proper video camera, because "hybrid" as Canon defines it (and the marketplace agrees, judging by sales), are scenarios where you are *mixing* stills and video; it is not suggestive of a cine-worthy level of video capabilities packed into a stills body with no limits.
I would love to shoot 2+ hr videos directly on my R5, but that's simply because I don't wish to own or rent a video body for the scenarios in which I want to do that (a few times per year at most). And when I do that, I know I'm not shooting stills, or I have to carry a 2nd body to do so (generally I'm prioritizing video over stills and taking a few snaps with my high-end phone), therefore it's not a "hybrid" situation. A hybrid scenario would be if I was taking candids at a wedding reception and recorded the cake cutting to video (R5 has no issues accommodating this situation, even with 8K or 4K120); if I was the staffed videographer recording the whole wedding, I would not be doing so on my stills body! This is basically the same argument about the EOS R not having 2 card slots...not an issue for most people, definitely not an issue for the intended audience. I shot that body with no issues for 3 years, though I appreciate having 2 card slots on my R5 now.
It's not "ludicrous" though, because if it was, you wouldn't be on a Canon forum having this argument, you'd just be shooting Sony, which you indicate has what you want. There's a difference between what's ideal and what's possible, vs. what Canon might be interested in bringing to the market. They have never not had the 30 min cap so you're not encumbered by something that did not previously exist, and if it's that important to you (and others), then dollars will do the talking, Sony will start to overtake Canon, and they'll have to change course. I don't see that happening though, because MOST stills and hybrid shooters are not blocked by the 30 minute limit, and those that are probably have a cine body or a Ninja anyway, and are choosing to work around Canon's limitations because they prefer the other features the platform has, rather than shoot Sony solely because they don't impose a video limit on their stills bodies.
Upvote
0
The R5 Mark II would not have active cooling and even more still photo features than the R5.
I would also expect at least 50 MP.
For reference look at the S1 and S1H.
The Sony FX3 is an a7S III with active cooling, no EVF, and a different name entirely.
Upvote
0
Why should I buy an external recorder, adding to cost and space in my bag, to get a feature that Sony and Panasonic cameras in the same and cheaper price brackets already have?
It costs Canon nothing to remove the recording limit. It's there to upsell people, why are you defending this?
This is what "hybrid" means to me: that it is capable of doing both jobs, but might compromise on premium features. The R5 is a great stills camera, but the record time limit for me means that it is not suited for any kind of professional work that I do, which is shooting interviews. With that in mind, the R5 isn't even a second angle B camera.
The R5 isn't a hybrid because it literally cannot do even the most basic function of my work.
For the R5 to be a "hybrid" to me, it should be able to shoot unlimited 1080p and non-upscaled 4k. The premium features in my mind are things like high fps slow motion modes, internal NDs, etc. Those I expect to pay more for, not a basic recording mode offered in the same and cheaper price brackets by Sony and Panasonic.
You say that I should just move to Sony, but as I said earlier in this very thread I already have a decent amount of Canon lenses and I'd like to avoid moving systems if I can.
The question you should really be asking is this: why does Canon think that unlimited record length is a premium feature while Sony and Panasonic see it as a basic feature?
Doesn't it bother you that Canon forces customers to pay way more out of pocket for something that both costs them nothing and that their competitors offer already?
Upvote
0
You bought your Canon cameras and lenses without unlimited 1080p and non-upscaled 4k. Canon has never suggested they would offer these features in a stills or hybrid body, whether at time of sale or through firmware upgrades. So you either invested in "a decent amount of Canon lenses" when you didn't need these features, or you did so without properly understanding how important they were to your work. Or you are playing devil's advocate now - you STILL haven't described what it is you do that necessitates both 1. An R5 that shoots > 30 min video 2. An R5c (as-speculated) *not* being an adequate solution for that requirement.
I don't know why Canon separates > 30 min videos away from their stills/hybrid-oriented bodies, but it impacts me little, which is why I own and enjoy my R5, and I later purchased a Ninja V+, as a choice to enhance my video capture abilities without buying a 2nd body of any kind to do so. And though it's not just about me, as previously stated, I do not see how this decision impacts a large number of legitimate hybrid workflows - you have not illustrated anything to the contrary, just your arbitrary definition of what YOU think is a "premium video feature" and what's not.
Upvote
0
Translation: I have no idea why Canon continues this absolutely awful business practice but since it only affects people who are not me I not only don't care but will also spend extra money on additional hardware to get that feature that I say I don't care about.
You say "I do not see how this decision impacts a large number of legitimate hybrid workflows - you have not illustrated anything to the contrary, just your arbitrary definition of what YOU think is a "premium video feature" and what's not."
First off, my definition of "premium video feature" is just as arbitrary as yours. According to me, 4k slow-mo and internal NDs are premium. According to you, unlimited record times featured on competitors cameras in the same and lower price brackets are premium. I'll throw myself upon the mercy of more expensive cinema cameras having the features I listed as evidence on which feature is actually premium.
Second, my hybrid workflow is absolutely impacted by the recording time limit. I use a C100 as my main camera for interviews, but it would be nice to reliably have the R5 as a not just a stills/b-roll camera, but a genuine second angle camera. However, since you say "I do not see how this decision impacts a large number of legitimate hybrid workflows - you have not illustrated anything to the contrary", I guess that my workflow is illegitimate.
I bought my Canon lenses years ago for stills, but I've been looking to get a new camera body to supplement my video work. It'd be nice if I didn't need to change camera systems to get a hybrid camera that is actually hybrid. Your condescension to my process for purchasing gear however, is noted.
You're right, I didn't purchase those items at the time with video in mind. That said, it's nearly 2022 and Sony and Panasonic both have cameras in the same and cheaper price brackets that have the (in my apparently arbitrary opinion as opposed to your legitimate opinion) basic feature of unlimited record time.
The R5 is an excellent stills camera and should be commended for its stills ability. However, Canon promoted it as the ultimate hybrid camera, which in my opinion was a straight up lie. If it can't perform the most basic video function for me, it's a toy and not a tool. Canon should never have advertised it as such.
If the R5c has unlimited record times, I'm absolutely a potential customer as I'd like to have to avoid changing systems.
Upvote
0
All that about less megapixels = better in lowlight is mostly a pure myth when it comes to modern digital cameras. And has been disproven countless of times. There are numerous new cameras with more pixels than the supposedly those "lowlight monster" low pixel count cameras with equal or better lowlight capabilities. And low resolution images displayed on a modern high resolution display will most often not look better.
DPReview TV: Why lower resolution sensors are not better in low light
A common belief in the camera world is that lower resolution cameras – and larger pixels – perform better in low light. In this video we illustrate why you should question that bit of conventional wisdom.
www.dpreview.com
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Going from what I have seen on reviews the Nikon Z7II or A7RIV give the best image quality on FF with the R5 behind both.
As for the GFX 100 Mark Denney reported in one of his videos that he is having to stack multiple images to get the required DOF that he could get in 1 shot on his APSC and FF systems. That tilt and shift lens Fuji announced earlier in the year will be eagerly awaited by GFX shooters.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
