If this guy can fabricate a part by hand and fit it to the camera and it works, then Canon could have EASILY solved the overheating problem of the R5.
Mike, I know it seems logical to draw that conclusion, but that’s simply not true. He added cost and weight to the R5, both in materials and labor. He also moved the heat to an area accessible to the user which means their skin can come into contact with a very uncomfortable temperature. And while the heat dissipation is improved, components are also running for a length of time that is untested by the manufacturer (or tested and known to cause premature failures).
So, there’s premature claims of failures or overheating that will occur when you create a hot spot. There are all sorts of power issues that come from running hot electronics for extended periods of time. There could be longevity issues with computers.
PROPERLY cooled components designed for extended duty cycles require more research, more materials, more testing.....
This is a potential fix that is just put out. Time will tell if this is a legitimate fix for the overheating issues. If some variant of this approach is more widely adopted because it works, then my statements are validated.
The number of people who believe a thing does not indicate the truth of a thing.
This is not a case of believing. We have empirical data to show the fix worked. This is indisputable at this point. That is unless the person in the video is perpetrating a complete fraud which has a very low probability of occurring.
I didn’t clearly explain myself previously, but one potential effect of moving heat to the exterior of the body could be that users could simply believe there is something wrong with their camera. A company must consider the cost of the perception of design flaws and/or users constantly sending their camera in for service when it is not required.
Heat transfer to surfaces is done with many hand held electronic devices. This isn't new engineering at play. Canon has a multitude of ways to extract heat from a camera. They chose to do none of them and even ensured the processor would overheat by not even having any heat transfer material be in contact with it. Why would the engineers use heat transfer material on the memory chips and and not a baking processor? This makes no sense at all.
A person with limited resources identified the source of the problem and fabricated a fix for the overheating issue. So far it appears to work very well. If his work is legitimate and effective then we will see more of this type of modification occurring. His way of handling the overheating issue will be vetted over time.
Also, this fix appears to have worked under the firmware's heat control measures being applied so I tend to lean toward the application of this fix not affecting the long term reliability of the camera.
That is a conclusion unsupported by any factual evidence.
Some things take time to vet out. Did you miss where I used the word "appears?"
Canon made a firmware fix designed for the camera AS CONFIGURED FROM THE FACTORY. That means that they knew what to expect from an unmodified unit and in no way implies they took into account other factors like extended running time at high temperature while components are pulling current. Hot components, ones not cooled to their designed working envelope, were not designed or tested for those conditions.
Well, the fix appears to work within the parameters of the updated firmware. This indicates the modification may not negatively affect the overall function of the camera. He recorded 8k video for four hours with no indication the camera was damaged or compromised in any way. The proof is in the pudding as they say. Time needs to pass to see long term effects of applying this fix. As of now, it looks to be a viable solution to the problem. Also, if this fix reduces the amplitude of the heating cycles in the camera (which the data he presented indicates) then this will likely increase long reliability of the camera.
If fact, it will probably increase its long term viability by keeping the heat spikes to a lower level.
There’s no reason to believe that. He tested his heatsink in an air conditioned room. I would imagine plenty of folks would shoot outside on warm days or in the sun. The tests he did were extremely limited in their scope.
Sure there is. Heat cycling in electronic devices is one of the main causes of component failure. Your logic regarding testing is flawed. He should test his fix with consistent ambient temperatures first (i.e. indoors in a controlled environment) to determine its effectiveness. Why would he not do this? Then he operated the camera in a warmer environment to further analyze the effectiveness of his fix. This is why he came up with an externally mounted enhancement that blew area over the area behind the LCD which proved to be very effective in cooling this area and increasing recording times in warmer ambient temperatures.
Have you even watched the video?
All it would take is to design a heat tube to route heat to an external surface of the camera. This is done in smartphones as an afterthought.
Which produce far less heat.
Smartphones generate a lot of heat and it is done in a much smaller, tighter space.
That’s not actually true. They are far thinner than a camera body. They have far more efficient chips.
They generate a lot of heat in a very confined space. Thermal management in a smartphone is critical to its proper function.
It looks to me like the lack of applying effective heat management was intentional because the engineering and cost to add this type of cooling system would be minimal.
You don’t know that nor do you know the design considerations at play. Also, cost and profits matter.
I can infer it with a decent amount of surety
LOL No, you can’t.
Yes you can. It recorded 8k video for four hours straight when a stock camera can only manage 20 minutes in ideal conditions. Dismissing this shows me you don't understand the implications of this feat. Did you watch the video?
because a guy actually did it for less than $1 in parts and installed it with virtually no interference with existing components. Heat tubes are manufactured by the billions and cost very little per unit to produce.
They are also specifically designed for the exact component in which they will be installed. Volume matters.
The fact this guy hand fabricated a fix from >$1 in materials that fit into the dead space of the camera body with not interference on existing components means Canon could have done something similar as an afterthought. This cost to Canon of doing this in a $4k camera is minuscule.
A cost easily absorbed into a $4k camera body.
You’ve got profit reports on the R5?! Please share with the rest of us.
You are making a very poor defense of Canon here. Heat tubes are manufactured by the BILLIONS every year and installed in devices costing 1/40th the cost of an R5. You lost this debate before it even started.
As for fitting a heat tube into the body, it would be simple to do as it is done in smart phones which have far worse space constraints.
Especially if a guy with hand tools and limited resources can do it.
What testing did he do? How will people react to a 50 or 60 C hot spot? How will the electronics react to extended exposure to heat while simultaneously under load?
He ran the camera with the rear plate off to get direct temperature readings from the PCB over the processor and memory. The lowered temperatures after the fix as applied allowed longer recording (and only five minutes wait periods after overheating) compared to stock conditions. Also, it is better for components to see smaller temperature fluctuations which is happening after the fix is installed.
It is Canon's prerogative to limit capabilities of a camera if they choose. What irks me is how this camera's video capability was up front and center in the marketing effort. They used its video prowess to entice people to buy the R5. The R5 is a very good camera but $10 worth of parts would have let it live up to its billing.
You’ve fallen into a trap by making that assumption. And firmware changes made the R5 much more usable.
The guy actually tested the results with both firmwares installed after the fix was applied. The updated firmware resulted in much longer record times than the original firmware with the fix installed. This is empirical data so there isn't a lot of assumption being made on the results of this addition to the camera. The camera recorded 43% longer with the fix and updated firmware than it did stock with the updated firmware. When he tested the camera in a cooler room it ran continuously with no shutdowns. Blowing a small stream of air on the plastic area behind the LCD resulted in unlimited recording time in warmer ambient temperatures. He even 3D printed a base plate that used a small laptop cooling fan to blow air on the back plate that allowed unlimited recording times.
You’re just oversimplifying the issue and then extrapolating far reaching conclusions and then assuming you’re not only correct but in possession of all the data.
I have watched many videos from the person who made this one. He is very skilled in many areas and can fabricate components with very good quality. His overall skill set is impressive. Did you watch the video? If you did then I see no way you could say he did not do about as thorough a job as possible in analyzing the heat issues, fabricating a solution and then testing the results of its application. There really is not much assumption to be done after watching this video.
Lastly, if you need absolute proof, IMO, of Canon's negligence regarding this overheating issue then look no further than what they did regarding transferring heat from the processor. Canon put heat transfer pads on the memory chips but PUT NO HEAT TRANSFER PADS ON THE PROCESSOR! The processor in the R5 is sitting in a tight space cooking away with a air gap between it and any other components. This is an insane level of engineering negligence and even a simpleton would have known this is a terrible omission. As I said, Canon's engineers aren't this incompetent. I see no way this wasn't an intentional gimping of the camera to protect their Cinema line.
You are not in possession of all of the design considerations, operational parameters, testing requirements and results, and yet this one dude doing one mod and conducting extremely limited testing is more valid than all the tests and engineering you have no access to. Got it.
Neither are you. Got it? You have no clue if Canon intentionally gimped the R5. I have a clue because a guy fabricated a fix for its overheating problem in his house using hand tools and >$1 in materials. I have more of a clue than you do at this point.
Look, I mean no offense. I also know it may look like I’m just “defending Canon” but here’s the God’s honest truth. I’ve been involved in design projects before that appeared from the outside to be fairly simple. I’ve worked with engineers for years on solutions to problems that appeared simple and then sat in rooms with high level executives with no engineering experience making the most obvious suggestions one could imagine. I had to tell them “we could do that, but then these twenty things would happen that would need solutions and it would take this many years and a few million dollars if that the direction you want to go.” Or I’ve had to say “no, we can’t do that because the material you’re taking about has these properties and would be entirely unsuitable for the specified requirement and tests this must pass.” I’ve seen amazing new technologies that appeared to solve all problems, only to discover that using it would mean increasing this one dimension by an inch and that alone would require huge redesign costs and monumental modification costs to existing hardware....so maybe we just use slightly older technology and save years and millions of dollars.
I have a B.S. in engineering and have been designing for decades. The situation here is far from looking favorable that Canon did their best in managing the heat in the R5. Simple heat management measures that are done as an afterthought in today's electronic designs were completely left out in the R5. This all but irrefutable fact at this point. What this Youtuber has done is shine a very bright light on this having occurred.
It’s just not as simple as you make it out to be. But yes, it is still possible that Canon cut corners. It’s just as likely they allowed the heat to stay where it is for a very good reason. Either one would be very difficult to actually prove.
It was simple enough for a guy with limited resources to dismantle the camera, analyze the problem and fabricate a fix that appears to be quite effective.
