Gerald Undone completes exhaustive record time testing on the Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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
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:
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Heck, look at the Leica's. You can pay $8K for the and get both no video AND no Bayer filter. A real bargain
Upvote
0
Heck, look at the Leica's. You can pay $8K for the and get both no video AND no Bayer filter. A real bargain
Less is more!
Upvote
0
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!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
