Gerald Undone completes exhaustive record time testing on the Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6

privatebydesign

I don't preorder, I'm not a paid beta tester!
Jan 29, 2011
8,822
2,750
120
It would sell in the same numbers the 1dc did to the 1dx, so no wonder they don’t bother..
I’m not sure, don’t forget the 1DC was $14,999 at launch! An R5C could be made for a fraction of that and there are a lot more video centric shooters out there now. Having said that there is no way Canon would make that camera as it would kill most of the C range.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

CJudge

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 22, 2019
60
75
Ireland
www.colin-judge.com
One thing of context that I have only seen written once. Even when the camera stops recording in the limited modes, 8k, 4k120 etc, it will still work as a stills and video camera for any other mode, instantly. This is not the behavior all other hybrids exhibit, once they ‘overheat’ they are bricks. The Canon NEVER bricks even when it won’t record in the limited modes anymore.
This is possibly why the camera goes into "overheat" warning so quickly. It seems conservative, but it means that Canon is prioritising always being able to function in stills and basic video modes.

Unfortunately, the flip side to this conservative heat management approach is that walking around shooting stills or lower resolution video actually eats into your record times for the other modes. So for all the people who feel that the overheating fears are overblown because no-one needs a 40 minute shot of 4K 120p... well by the time you flip into that high frame rate mode, your camera might already be too warm to even give you 2 minutes. And then you'll need to power off the camera for half an hour before you can shoot another 5 minutes.

Without changing the physical thermal management in the camera, I think Canon is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either risk bricking the camera for all functions once heat builds up to a higher threshold, or keep things as they are now, with very limited record times for hybrid shooters.
 

davidhfe

EOS RP
Sep 9, 2015
302
443
I understand, YouTube is a great platform to be heard, which is why the overheating and cooldown issue is having a spotlight shone on it. But how many in the real world market would pony up for a video oriented mirrorless camera ala the A7SIII?

How many of you would buy a Canon EOSR5C?
  • It would compromise weather sealing
  • Have vents and a silent fan
  • Full Size HDMI 2.1
  • Delete 29 min 59 second time limit for essentially unlimited recording in all codecs, framerates & bitrates
  • Same photo capabilities as R5
  • Probably cost $4399
Maybe it could add a few extras like Built in ND filters, Shutter Angle Priority, Better Audio Preamps, but will not include them for now since the above seems doable for Canon. If it gets all these video extras it's probably a $5K camera at that point.

Would you buy this camera?
I am really, really curious what Canon's answer to the A7SIII is. In the past it's been "Buy a CX00" but I just don't think that's going to be a valid strategy over time. I think a more expensive R5c, actively cooled with a larger body, north of $4K would be really compelling. I wouldn't buy this camera, but I would absolutely rent it when needed.

The problem is, I'm not sure that's the right approach. A really nice 20/24mp sensor could still get you a great oversampled image, the ability to do a 5/6K raw, and likely better quality HFR modes. 60 and 120 are just going to be a problem when you're reading twice the data and need to start line skipping. An ideal R5c might be more in that mp range, which makes the R6 a bit of a missed opportunity IMO.

I think Sony's approach to their lineup is just a little easier to wrap my head around. I would love to see what Canon's roadmap for Q4 2021 looks like. Right now it seems like they swung for "video focused mirrorless bodies are unnecessary" and missed.
 

CJudge

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 22, 2019
60
75
Ireland
www.colin-judge.com
I am really, really curious what Canon's answer to the A7SIII is. In the past it's been "Buy a CX00" but I just don't think that's going to be a valid strategy over time. I think a more expensive R5c, actively cooled with a larger body, north of $4K would be really compelling. I wouldn't buy this camera, but I would absolutely rent it when needed.

The problem is, I'm not sure that's the right approach. A really nice 20/24mp sensor could still get you a great oversampled image, the ability to do a 5/6K raw, and likely better quality HFR modes. 60 and 120 are just going to be a problem when you're reading twice the data and need to start line skipping. An ideal R5c might be more in that mp range, which makes the R6 a bit of a missed opportunity IMO.

I think Sony's approach to their lineup is just a little easier to wrap my head around. I would love to see what Canon's roadmap for Q4 2021 looks like. Right now it seems like they swung for "video focused mirrorless bodies are unnecessary" and missed.
Yeah, the video footage out of the R5 handily beats the R6, which is... strange, to me. The lower resolution sensor seems like it should provide better dynamic range and much better low light, but that's apparently not the case. Canon could have positioned the R5 as the answer to the A7Riv, and the R6 as the answer to the eventual A7iv, keeping the usual answer of "buy our cinema line if you need better video". The A7Siii would keep its place as king of mirrorless video, but with the R6 performing so closely, Canon would be the first choice for any hybrid shooters.

As it stands, it seems like the R6 is more squarely considered to be the option for people who are budget restricted from buying the R5. Oh well. Every camera on the market right now is pretty phenomenal to be honest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mariosk1gr

analoggrotto

EOS 90D
Aug 27, 2016
158
88
Canon should update the R5 with smaller microprocessor fab size for the Digic X, leave everything the same and all should be fine after that.
 

mb66energy

EOS R
Dec 18, 2011
1,402
279
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
...

I think most people think their 4K TVs look better because the technology has improved, not necessarily the resolution.

...
I bought a 4k TV 6 years ago, a 40 inch smaller one and I never regretted it: You do not see any pixels from 2 or 3 m distance while all FullHD TVs do show them. I think that 4k gives a more natural representation just of smaller resolutions like FullHD or HD. Maybe that is some part of the improved "tech" - but I fully support that all the other aspects of tech have improved (except ergonomics, I want a remote with a volume knob and backlit buttons).
It is another thing with beamers who put the R, G and B channel data into ONE pixel (not three subpixels): Here each quantum of resolution helps ... if you not are too far away from the screen.
 

Shakey

I'm New Here
Sep 10, 2018
11
29
Personally my solution would be for Canon to build an R5 with ZERO video capabilities. I do not shoot video...again just my personal take on stills/video cameras. Each to their own.
 

genriquez

EOS M50
Feb 5, 2019
36
40
I love Gerald Undone's work but he's not into photography. He pre-ordered 3 of Sony's new A7Siii which is an amazing 12MP video centric 4k camera that costs $3500. Canon should have just sent R5/R6 to hybrid or photography YouTubers. If the R5 was designed primarily for video they should have sent that to him.

He said that 12MP is fine for photography if you know what you are doing which is true but most photographers would never buy a $3500 camera with 12MP.

I hope his review of the R5 is compared to the A7RIV and not the A7Siii
 
Last edited:

Eclipsed

EOS M6 Mark II
Apr 30, 2020
98
87
So, I gather that Canon is going to realize that they made R&D mistakes with the R5 to meet their market deadlines and work to create the R4 for 2022 where the body (hopefully) has a better heat sink, chip design, and redesigned body ergonomics so that we can then spend another $4k on a non toy model? Something tells me that Nikon may come in for the steal with their Z8 and Z9 models. After all, in the mirrorless market, there is a competition against Sony now that Canon and Nikon are abandoning their DSLRs for EVF models.
I’m happy with the R5. I don’t want to add the bulk and weight of heat managementso others can shoot extended 8k. Different model makes sense.
 

LesC

EOS RP
Jun 27, 2013
283
73
Essex, UK
500px.com
One thing of context that I have only seen written once. Even when the camera stops recording in the limited modes, 8k, 4k120 etc, it will still work as a stills and video camera for any other mode, instantly. This is not the behavior all other hybrids exhibit, once they ‘overheat’ they are bricks. The Canon NEVER bricks even when it won’t record in the limited modes anymore.
That's good to know as I'm not really interested in the R5's video features. However, it does annoy me that I have to pay extra for video features I don't really need AND that don't appear to work satisfactorily.
 

reefroamer

EOS M6 Mark II
Jun 21, 2014
81
100
To folks who feel the video time (thermal) limitations of R5/R6 are a deal killer, I feel your pain. I’d have felt the same way to learn, for example, that 12fps shooting was limited to 25 shots without AF. But rather than rail against the Canon beast, I’d simply look elsewhere. Or wait for what I need to justify spending $4,000.

I think, and just my 2 cents here, that Canon clearly prioritized the R5 and R6 as stills cameras. The many stills shooters who worried the R5/R6 would sacrifice their needs for amazing video specs were wrong. Now, the video-centric crowd can see that, in fact, it was the exotic video specs that were compromised (time-limited) by Canon's engineering commitment to a small, powerful, weather-sealed stills-first body.

I don’t consider time limits on video shooting to be defects. They are simply engineered limitations that may or may not work for some. The same applies to still specs. These decisions were all tossed around in Canon development meetings, you can be sure.

I'd also suggest that most of the nearly-unbelievable pre-intro hype for these new cameras did NOT appear to come from Canon, but from social media and rumors, and perhaps, insider leaks. Canon did tout the full-frame 8k capability to a convention of broadcasters a few months back, but I never read it was without limitations. In fact, there was much speculation on this site about probable 8k limitations and for most people it was generally expected In some form.

In hindsight, Canon PR/marketing could have done a better job of pro-actively dealing with the video overheating limitations during the official launch activities. For example, proudly claiming the advancements but acknowledging limitations that, by design constraints, would not be acceptable in certain applications. Better to crap a little on your own parade rather than be covered by a giant dump from the interweb “Influencers.”

I think these will be superb cameras for many shooters (As will competitor's products). As always, our mileage will vary. I'm happy we have so many great choices for our various needs.
 

davidhfe

EOS RP
Sep 9, 2015
302
443
I love Gerald Undone's work but he's not into photography. He pre-ordered 3 of Sony's new A7Siii which is an amazing 12MP video centric 4k camera that costs $3500. Canon should have just sent R5/R6 to hybrid or photography YouTubers. If the R5 was designed primarily for video they should have sent that to him.

He said that 12MP is fine for photography if you know what you are doing which is true but most photographers would never buy a $3500 camera with 12MP.

I hope his review of the R5 is compared to the A7RIV and not the A7Siii
His point was more like "need a few stills for a social post? The A7SIII is fine." To be honest, you could say the same thing about the R5 "need a quick 4K video while shooting stills? The R5 is fine"

I'm actually not sure I'd want to see his review of the camera as a stills cam. An awful lot of the YouTube reviewers do a quick test of somebody walking towards the camera with AF on, go take a picture of their friend looking out of the railing in a high DR situation, and call it a photography review. That's like me taking an R5 and recording a bunch of rustling leaves out of my window and giving a verdict on it as a video camera. It's sort of why I like Fro's videos—at least he takes them to an assignment, goes and shoots college sports, etc. I want to see adult soccer matches and concert photography. I want to see a food stylist use it tethered and the moire of a wedding dress. That's why I loved Armando's video of the R5 in a production environment.

Even if that's not what the camera is designed for, he took his expertise (video production) and applied it to the unit. That's what I look for in reviews now that we're past the Northrups spending half an hour talking about electronic shutter banding (WE KNOW) and DPR's test charts.
 

privatebydesign

I don't preorder, I'm not a paid beta tester!
Jan 29, 2011
8,822
2,750
120
That's good to know as I'm not really interested in the R5's video features. However, it does annoy me that I have to pay extra for video features I don't really need AND that don't appear to work satisfactorily.
This has been argued to death but the short version is this, whilst the 'video' parts of the camera might add to the cost of the product because the market size is increased and sales volume along with it the amortization of those costs ends up as a net negative for stills shooters. That is, as stills shooters we end up paying less for the stills capable cameras we want because they can also sell that same camera to people with video and hybrid use in mind. Just look at the costly debacle the Nikon Df was to see stills only cameras cost more and don't sell.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
348
290
This has been argued to death but the short version is this, whilst the 'video' parts of the camera might add to the cost of the product because the market size is increased and sales volume along with it the amortization of those costs ends up as a net negative for stills shooters. That is, as stills shooters we end up paying less for the stills capable cameras we want because they can also sell that same camera to people with video and hybrid use in mind. Just look at the costly debacle the Nikon Df was to see stills only cameras cost more and don't sell.
Totally agree, the DF was bizarre camera.

I'll add to this though and say I think we can at least partially thank the development costs of 8K raw video for the R5 being able to shoot 20 FPS, 45 megapixel images with full DPAF. I'm sure that would have been greatly more difficult for Canon to pull off and justify if they weren't also developing the processing power and autofocus system for that kind of video output.
 

davidhfe

EOS RP
Sep 9, 2015
302
443
Totally agree, the DF was bizarre camera.

I'll add to this though and say I think we can at least partially thank the development costs of 8K raw video for the R5 being able to shoot 20 FPS, 45 megapixel images with full DPAF. I'm sure that would have been greatly more difficult for Canon to pull off and justify if they weren't also developing the processing power and autofocus system for that kind of video output.
Heck, look at the Leica's. You can pay $8K for the and get both no video AND no Bayer filter. A real bargain ;)
 

mariosk1gr

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 4, 2019
56
43
This is the confusing part of all this, if it has overheated then surely the internals including the cards, sensor etc etc will be dangerously hot, too hot to work at all?? This does make me wonder if the warnings and shut down are triggered by a timer and not an actual temperature sensor? As some reviews have said, the warning has come up but the card and battery are only warm, not hot. This wouldn't happen if the camera was actually overheating?
My conclusion to this is simple. Reliability and Canon was for so many years just one thing.. and still is! Canon won't put in danger their camera at any cost... even what we are living since the launch about overheating issues! Canon's 1st Priority with these cameras is the photography world and 2nd the video. Their mistake was that they advertised more the video specs than the stills specs and the "crows" gathered all together to spit poison. Nevertheless R5 and R6 will be bestsellers!
 

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
202
254
Personally my solution would be for Canon to build an R5 with ZERO video capabilities. I do not shoot video...again just my personal take on stills/video cameras. Each to their own.
Unfortunately there are not enough stills only photographers left to warrant it. At least that's what Canon believes or they would offer one.

Also, the resale value of such a camera would likely be low given the small market for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger