So much for the conspiracy theories. You don't want to cook your electronics. Its how you do accelerated life testing...
Yes, when I looked at this chart late last night, and no subsequent posters had yet replied, I thought it quite odd that the chart didn't generate an immediate response that
a supposed "workaround" like this would likely fry the R5's electronics in a fairly quick manner. These internal temperatures are well above ones that would ordinarily prompt any manufacturer to set limits on operation, whether through heat sensors or timers. You may argue that the design
should have allowed better cooling and faster temperature cool downs, but that would have required any or all of a lot of less than ideal changes: more space for heat sinks and fans in a bigger body, possible noise and vibration problems and poorer weather sealing, or limitations on bit depth, and ommision of specifications which are uniquely high in the case of the R5. But the main take-away here should be: given the reality of what the R5 actually is, rather than what some people had wished it to be, that Canon is trying to protect buyers, not trick them.
If the temperatures reached were
dangerous enough to fry the R5's electronics, then no workaround should have been possible.
Hahaha!! Sorry this if funny. It isn’t canon’s fault that people start messing around with the camera as they have.
You shouldn’t be able to mess with a electric saw and remove the safety mechanisms built in, but by just removing a few screws you can. It isn’t the manufacturer’s responsibility to make things completely idiot proof.
Since canon probably didn’t expect to what extent people will mess with it, it is possible that they do correct this via FW down the road. Hard temp sensor thresholds and problem solved. But then I am sure people will complain about that too.
You ignored the subsequent section. They have temperature based shut off also, so if the temperatures being discussed really are
enough to fry electronics, that should cut in and shut off immediately.
I'm simply disputing that temperatures ever reached electronics frying levels with the limits that have been worked around. Rather the levels are likely quite conservative if they are relying on timers, and so far no camera had been fried yet bypassing the timers.
you understand very little of this subject.
On the contrary, I understand this subject probably more than a lot of people here.
you're certainly not showing it.
1) it's not a matter of "frying" it's a reduction of lifespan with increased heat. Some things are more susceptible to heat than others.
You like lawny13 failed to read the discussion and are going off on a completely different subject (lifespan reduction vs frying the electronics). As I bolded above, the entire discussion was talking about dangerous temperatures that require immediate shut down.
actually what you are discussing is a strawman and not relevant.
Well two separate people brought it upthread (it was not brought up by me) and if it were true then it would make a
huge difference in whether people should be trying this workaround or not. So it's definitely relevant to the discussion and in fact in this subthread, it's all we are discussing (you were the one trying to change the subject to be about service life).
All I am disputing is the notion that the workaround is bypassing sensing of dangerous temperatures. Rather if the temperature reaches dangerous levels the camera will shut down immediately based on temperature. No workaround should be able to bypass this. As such the current workaround, won't result in the frying your camera in short order (as demonstrated by multiple people who tried already). Whether it reduces average service life is a different subject.
actually it's not.
there's always a level of temperature when electronics decide that's it. time to cool off.
that could be because of reduced performance, reliability or even things such as occupational hazards. Some things inside of a camera are significantly sensitive to temperature.
it's hardly ever because things are about to burst into flames.
The thermal shutdown is not about literally bursting in flames but about component failure (temporary or permanent) in a short period of time (within seconds to hours at most). Back in the days before auto throttling and shutdown was common on boards/CPUs, people have burned out their CPUs in seconds due to a missing heatsink or improperly mounted one. With a heatsink (but fan failure) it is less likely to fry the CPU, but the system will still crash in minutes. You can see plenty of cases of this in the Athlon forums in particular (Intel had built in thermal protection earlier). With thermal based throttling and shutdown this is all prevented.
I mean Sony has shutdowns as well (without warning) because that because it was seconds away from bursting into flames?
Sony actually allows you to toggle this with the "Auto Pwr OFF Temp." It can shut down on a more conservative temp (perhaps service life related), but it can also shut down at a higher temp that is more dangerous for the camera (or user). There's debate about whether this temperature is about temperatures that might burn a person holding the camera, vs the traditional processor junction temperature limits (as above). In either case it allows significantly longer recording times before shutdown.
Also we don't know what envelope and assumptions Canon is operating under.
So without knowing those assumptions, you can't factually state anything.
what we do know is that "flipping the clock" does "something" .. whether or not it effectively works around a design limitation that Canon has isolated and is concerned about - no one knows, but it certainly does not have to be because the damned camera is about to smolder.
I'm not saying it's because the camera is about to smolder. In fact I'm saying the
opposite, that the limits being removed by this workaround are likely more conservative ones that would
not result in immediate failure of the camera after removal (whether permanent damage or camera crashing). It was the two people I was responding to that was suggesting that this workaround would cook or fry the camera.
What I find interesting is that many people are making assumptions without knowing all the facts, and none of us know the facts. Not you, Not me. Certainly not Andrew from EOSHD, no one outside of Canon knows the design criteria.
Sure, but it's at least been demonstrated you won't fry your camera by removing the timer part of the limits (which for most people are the ones they want removed the most). I don't think people have issue with keeping the temperature based shutdown (people aren't working on hacks to bypass those). As for whether it might reduce service life, that is another discussion completely (which you yourself say you don't have evidence to support either way, so there are no conclusions that can be reached anyways).
