Naturally depends on how hot it gets. I recall consumer limit for metal surface was 45C, and was plastic 55C? Of course it'd be uncomfortable to use already way beyond those, but still I think that might be one option how they improve the heat management while still keeping the body sealed.except then it burns you.
not an option really.
uncomfortable? you get what is called low temperature burns. anything over around 58c will cause serious permanent harm. over around 48c it will cause pain. that's not alot of wiggle room when the internals of the camera go above 60c. the only way of doing this is with active cooling where the heat is forcably removed from the internal, and also at the same time, the camera body itself.Naturally depends on how hot it gets. I recall consumer limit for metal surface was 45C, and was plastic 55C? Of course it'd be uncomfortable to use already way beyond those, but still I think that might be one option how they improve the heat management while still keeping the body sealed.
Actually, a 3 series made sense back when the 5D was originally released as the 5D back then was not the high quality camera it became later, being in many ways closer to the later 6D. Historically, the EOS 3 replaced the EOS 5 and sat in exactly the spot, relative to the 1-series, that the current iteration of the 5D sits in.The reason I am sceptical about this is the CanonWatch report contains the alternative designation of 3 instead of 5. Anyone familiar with rumours about Canon cameras for the last 12 years or so is familiar with the fabled 3 series of cameras that would fit between the 1D cameras and the 5D line.
I would guess there is a bit of yes here, but mostly no. From Canon's perspective, when they launched the cinema lineup, it was "Market Adjacent" to their core market. In other words, using a few tweaks, it was a whole new market they could play and grow in whereas they were top dog in the stills market. So, stills photography is likely considered their "core" business, but they will always be looking for adjacent markets that they can grow.Bit of a question here. Has Canon decided that video is where the money, for them, is.
I ask because it strikes me that people who are wholly or largely stills shooters probably‘ I guess, don‘t change or upgrade their kit as often as video people who still seem to be chasing the road of innovation to some ‘holy grail’ camera.
I’f I’m right (and I make no wild claims here) then there will come a point at which stills becomes a bit of a backwater in the product line.
I know the R6 and R5 are very good stills cameras marketed for video. Perhaps the marketing is a message of intent. Most of the noise and action from Canon and on the web seems to be about video. Maybe that is how they see the way forward.
Love your Profile pic, did you draw/digitally paint that yourself? If so awesome skills bud!In full honesty, I purchased the R6 to handle all of the photography demands that my video making process requires. In that aspect it has done really, really well. I did not buy the R5 as it seemed to just not really be a capable video shooting camera, and if this rumor is at all true, it would make sense for me to get an R5 VIDEO version of the camera. Yet, here we are again having to look at the prospect of cost, and that is going to be an issue if they do release a video version, what is the cost going to be with the new Cine line coming out?
But wouldn't compressing a raw file or otherwise down grading it add to the processor intensity? The data flows from each pixel, the processor has to eliminate some of that data and make the file, then write to card. I would have assumed an uncompressed file would be the least processor intensive, and the ONLY way to get fast.We know mechanical shutters can work that fast. The bottleneck is data throughput. An uncompressed RAW file out of that camera would probably be around 150MB, so the image processor would have to work at 1.8 GB/s to get the full 12 FPS. Certainly not impossible with modern day CPUs. But I doubt it would shoot uncompressed RAW that fast. It would probably have to be 12-bit or lower to get the maximum speed.
I have a 13"x9" photo from the top of Vernal Falls in Yosemite Valley, California, USA that was taken with a digital Rebel. It looks great even standing right next to it. Also 6MP. Definitely enough.After reviewing some older photos I found some nice shots made with Canon 10D. So I take back what I wrote in my earlier post and hereby declare: 6MP is plenty enough if you know what you are doing!
Thanks for the video post, docsmith. I think that it shows that an R5 with 4K all I or IPB with moderate sharpening in post is all you really need for good video footage without heat issues, while keeping the option of double speed video to allow for slow motion later in post. So for all of you with the R5, you can enjoy great video if you want and (of course) enjoy great stills. And that, my friends, is really what a true hybrid camera is all about!I would guess there is a bit of yes here, but mostly no. From Canon's perspective, when they launched the cinema lineup, it was "Market Adjacent" to their core market. In other words, using a few tweaks, it was a whole new market they could play and grow in whereas they were top dog in the stills market. So, stills photography is likely considered their "core" business, but they will always be looking for adjacent markets that they can grow.
A good company does not neglect their core market, but I have seen many hype the newer markets a bit.
As for the marketing of the R5/R6. I think this is a matter of people hearing what they wanted and Canon in a bit of a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. Starting with Canon, where they supposed to not mention 8K? I guess everyone expected them to say 8K but have a pharmaceutical like voice over in the commercials talking about heat? Not typically how marketing works. As for hearing what you want, the R5 is not part of the cinema lineup. It is part of the stills lineup. Sure they talked about the video features of a stills camera, but even during the hype, many video shooters seemed to thing it was "too good to be true" and guess what? It isn't a cinema lineup camera. From at least this still shooters perspective, I shoot 1080 and occasionally 4K. So, I heard the 8K go by, but mostly focused on the stills photography specs like the 12 fps, potential buffer size, AF speed, and the benefits of "Eye-AF" as those are about the only places I feel limited by my 5DIV (a great camera). The R5 has actually exceeded my expectations, especially in the reported AF speed, animal Eye-AF, and buffer size.
Also, on the video side....check out this comparison:
As is all too common, Canon releases something....many people jump on it....and eventually many people conclude it is actually very usable if not a great product.
Could be 8 fps and drop to a lower bit depth for 12. But we really don’t know what the X processor can do without the design limitations of the R5, which is what all the guesstimating is being based on.Combining high resolution with "speed" sounds impossible. It of course depends on how you interprets the term "speed". But already 12fps sounds unrealistic in my ears?
Somebody's wishful thinking?
No, uncompressed RAW files are the most data intensive still image files a camera can produce.But wouldn't compressing a raw file or otherwise down grading it add to the processor intensity? The data flows from each pixel, the processor has to eliminate some of that data and make the file, then write to card. I would have assumed an uncompressed file would be the least processor intensive, and the ONLY way to get fast.
But maybe the limit isn't in the crunching of the data, but instead in the writing to the card? In that case a smaller file would be helpful, assuming the processor can stay far enough ahead to keep up.
You pretty much described the S1H.If they made a metal conductor that went from the hot parts inside to the outside of the body - physically extended through the shell as a continuous piece - with a heat sync on the exposed part, the natural convection of just normal air, or better yet wind if outside, would help. If you put an active fan on that or a peltier device, it would go even better. But you'd have an inherent water vulnerability. You could weather seal around it, but in the event of a failure there its literally a conduit for water right where you don't want it. It would not be as good as a fan inside blowing directly on hot parts but with a way for fresh air to enter the body space.