A sad day - Canon R5 - Long Exposure issues (What are your thoughts???)

Gary Rawlins

Gary Rawlins

Suspended / Banned
Messages
368
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
No
What are your thoughts???


Purchased from new in November 2023.

Had to send it back today for repair on warranty.

This is the 3rd R5, now. The first two were used cameras, graded 10 and very poor, from a well known high street specialist.

This one was purchased as new, with a deal on the back-end of the first two cameras.

Hot pixels in RAW pre process, not noticeable after export to jpeg. I've circled all hot/bad pixels.

This image was an incremental test shot in Bulb mode for a 120 seconds exposure. F/11 - ISO 100 - 15 stop Nisi filter - Latest firmware.Pixels TP.jpg
 
My thoughts after you've had 3 duffers?

Sell it quick once repaired and get another model or make of camera.

My EM1X has taken loads of long exposures (up to 5 minutes on a star tracker) and very rarely do I get any hot pixels at all.
 
hot pixels is pretty common especially for such long exposures. This is why astro photographers for example take dark frames to deal with hot pixels through subtraction.

some camera manufactures do allow automatic remapping of hot pixels or even you can manually ask the camera to perform it. you should ideally be doing it every so often anyway
 
GreenNinja67 said:
My thoughts after you've had 3 duffers?

Sell it quick once repaired and get another model or make of camera.

My EM1X has taken loads of long exposures (up to 5 minutes on a star tracker) and very rarely do I get any hot pixels at all.
Click to expand...
This'll prove to be the biggest, "Poubelling", of hard earned cash, ever.

Lenses and accessories, included.

:(
 
nandbytes said:
hot pixels is pretty common especially for such long exposures. This is why astro photographers for example take dark frames to deal with hot pixels through subtraction.

some camera manufactures do allow automatic remapping of hot pixels or even you can manually ask the camera to perform it. you should ideally be doing it every so often anyway
Click to expand...
Not this many hot pixels, surely?
 
nandbytes said:
hot pixels is pretty common especially for such long exposures. This is why astro photographers for example take dark frames to deal with hot pixels through subtraction.

some camera manufactures do allow automatic remapping of hot pixels or even you can manually ask the camera to perform it. you should ideally be doing it every so often anyway
Click to expand...
Dark frames are normally used to average out the noise in a long exposure astro image so the signal to noise ratio is greater.

Bias frames are for reducing fixed-pattern noise.

Flat frames are for correcting uneven field illumination and vignetting.
 
Send us a some RAW files, and one for normal dark exposure. It doesn't sound like this is right. You should be well within warranty.
nandbytes said:
hot pixels is pretty common especially for such long exposures. This is why astro photographers for example take dark frames to deal with hot pixels through subtraction.

some camera manufactures do allow automatic remapping of hot pixels or even you can manually ask the camera to perform it. you should ideally be doing it every so often anyway
Click to expand...
1200s perhaps, 120s should be still reasonably well behaved. I have seen one disaster-of-a-gfx100 that did this; must have been well defective or f***ed.

R5 is a noisy noisy thing, not much better than 5Ds it replaced, and truth be told 5Ds is no good for long exposures (120s+) at all because it looks like a hot mess, not just dotted hot pixels. This is not something I do more than once every 3 years so really couldn't care less. 30s is absolutely fine though.
 
robinsslee said:
Can you post before you made the circle please?
Click to expand...
No, I can't get the image size and file type to display the problem on here, the same as I see it in LR

Canon have the RAW images, and agreed that it was unusual.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
1200s perhaps, 120s should be still reasonably well behaved. I have seen one disaster-of-a-gfx100 that did this; must have been well defective or f***ed.
Click to expand...
no idea how long his camera was on. mirrorless sensors are always on and for all we know he might have been shooting a 1 hour video before taking that shot ;)

GreenNinja67 said:
Dark frames are normally used to average out the noise in a long exposure astro image so the signal to noise ratio is greater.
Click to expand...
also a way to remove hot pixels or stuck pixels. Noise is random which is averages out, stuck pixel or hot pixels don't, they remain in the same place.

Gary Rawlins said:
Not this many hot pixels, surely?
Click to expand...
depends on if they were ever remapped and how much you used the camera before taking this shot.
if it was literally this shot then it seems a bit much for 120s exposure.

But I have no idea what is "acceptable" in terms of hot pixels. I think my camera does an automatic remap every month or so and manual recommends doing it more often....
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
Send us a some RAW files, and one for normal dark exposure. It doesn't sound like this is right. You should be well within warranty.

1200s perhaps, 120s should be still reasonably well behaved. I have seen one disaster-of-a-gfx100 that did this; must have been well defective or f***ed.

R5 is a noisy noisy thing, not much better than 5Ds it replaced, and truth be told 5Ds is no good for long exposures (120s+) at all because it looks like a hot mess, not just dotted hot pixels. This is not something I do more than once every 3 years so really couldn't care less. 30s is absolutely fine though.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are repairing it under warranty.
 
nandbytes said:
no idea how long his camera was on. mirrorless sensors are always on and for all we know he might have been shooting a 1 hour video before taking that shot ;)
Click to expand...
There is always a possibility but realistically very remote. Your typical mirrorless camera will normally go into power saving mode after 30 or 60s.
 
nandbytes said:
no idea how long his camera was on. mirrorless sensors are always on and for all we know he might have been shooting a 1 hour video before taking that shot ;)


also a way to remove hot pixels or stuck pixels. Noise is random which is averages out, stuck pixel or hot pixels don't, they remain in the same place.


depends on if they were ever remapped and how much you used the camera before taking this shot.
if it was literally this shot then it seems a bit much for 120s exposure.
Click to expand...
I think this was the 3rd shot of the day. Fresh battery was installed maybe an hour before the shot. The camera would have been cool and there was a biting cold wind.
 
There are many people using canon gear just fine. I don't think this warrants "throwing you camera in the bin, burning your lenses, dancing naked and then buying another brand".

having said that i cannot find anything about pixel mapping in canon guides :thinking:
Can find it very easily in Sony guide and they recommend you do pixel mapping every 3 days! so that to me says this is not an uncommon issue.

Surely Canon also has this option in menus somewhere?
 
The response from the Canon technical team (through the dealer):

They have looked at your images provided. They have acknowledged that the hot pixels appearing on your image seems at a higher level than expected to be normal performance for the R5 & also said that if there was more prior to conversion of the file then it's a huge amount and doesn't seem right!

:confused:
 
Gary Rawlins said:
The response from the Canon technical team (through the dealer):

They have looked at your images provided. They have acknowledged that the hot pixels appearing on your image seems at a higher level than expected to be normal performance for the R5 & also said that if there was more prior to conversion of the file then it's a huge amount and doesn't seem right!

:confused:
Click to expand...
fair enough, I guess that means 3rd time unlucky then :(

perhaps try to get a refund since its been 3 bad bodies and wait for imminent R5ii?
 
nandbytes said:
fair enough, I guess that means 3rd time unlucky then :(

perhaps try to get a refund since its been 3 bad bodies and wait for imminent R5ii?
Click to expand...
I don't think a mk2 would be an option.

For everything other than long exposures, the R5 seems to be a very good camera. If it's simply a case of being a bad sensor, for the third time, then, I am lost for words.

Perhaps, the repair will yield better results. I'm just disappointed at this stage, without a camera, and now worrying about someone tinkering inside my brand new camera.

On top of that, I was hoping to produce some stunning images, similar to that of @alan72
 
Sorry to hear you're having these problems, very aggravating.

I've read that running the sensor cleaning routine, multiple times, can help reduce the number, did Canon mention that? have you tried it?
 
TimHughes said:
Sorry to hear you're having these problems, very aggravating.

I've read that running the sensor cleaning routine, multiple times, can help reduce the number, did Canon mention that? have you tried it?
Click to expand...
Hi, Tim.

Thank you, and yes. I'd watched a YT video about the issue, prior to purchasing the latest R5.

Too hot for photos - Video

I'd also read about the process for reducing the issue.

It seems as though my efforts made no difference.
 
Gary Rawlins said:
I don't think a mk2 would be an option.

For everything other than long exposures, the R5 seems to be a very good camera. If it's simply a case of being a bad sensor, for the third time, then, I am lost for words.

Perhaps, the repair will yield better results. I'm just disappointed at this stage, without a camera, and now worrying about someone tinkering inside my brand new camera.

On top of that, I was hoping to produce some stunning images, similar to that of @alan72
Click to expand...
Thankyou! Very kind!
 
Did you use long exposure noise reduction? It is effective for exposures longer than 1 second, and its' purpose is to reduce dark current noise.

Also, have you checked that the bright spots are in the same place in multiple images? If they move/change, they are caused by dark current/thermal noise; exasperated by how long the camera has been on/active (mirrorless) and the duration of the exposure. If they stay in the same place at the same intensity, then they are hot pixels. Mapping out hot pixels (servicing) isn't really going to help with dark current/thermal noise.
 
Last edited:
I haven't had canon for years but google suggests that running sensor clean option with lens cap on might do pixel mapping at the same time.
 
sk66 said:
Did you use long exposure noise reduction? It is effective for exposures longer than 1 second, and its' purpose is to reduce dark current noise.

Also, have you checked that the bright spots are in the same place in multiple images? If they move/change, they are caused by dark current/thermal noise; exasperated by how long the camera has been on/active (mirrorless) and the duration of the exposure. If they stay in the same place at the same intensity, then they are hot pixels. Mapping out hot pixels (servicing) isn't really going to help with dark current/thermal noise.
Click to expand...
NR, yes.

Hopefully Canon will get back to me with an in-depth explanation, although, they did check the images I sent them and have acknowledged that the hot pixels appearing on your image seems at a higher level than expected to be normal performance for the R5.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Dont think I'll be buying an R5 anytime soon.... ever.... :(
Click to expand...
Indeed.

It would seem that R5's can't handle heat. Perfectly adequate for normal shooting, but long exposure (being 120 seconds in my case), no way.

I can't find anything on the Canon advertising mentioning this, but it's ok, the camera only retailed for nearly £4k :rolleyes:
 
4wd said:
I haven't had canon for years but google suggests that running sensor clean option with lens cap on might do pixel mapping at the same time.
Click to expand...
I wonder what is going on inside the camera. Wizardry programming to cover up issues, perhaps?

It feels like you have to pump up the car tyres before you can drive the car.
 
Gary Rawlins said:
I wonder what is going on inside the camera. Wizardry programming to cover up issues, perhaps?

It feels like you have to pump up the car tyres before you can drive the car.
Click to expand...
Don't forget stopping every 10 miles to reinflate and also top up leaking coolant. Had this fun with jaguar a while ago. Never again
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Don't forget stopping every 10 miles to reinflate and also top up leaking coolant. Had this fun with jaguar a while ago. Never again
Click to expand...
Cars and cameras, both extremely expensive, oozing with cutting edge technology, but utterly useless at some point.

Canon R5 MK2 - I'd read that it had been spotted in public somewhere, and had some kind of vent, on the body. Do you think it may have a fan? or an exhaust for expelling hot pixels ;)
 
I have to say that my MK1 4ltr Jag S was very reliable. Me and my then GF went all over in it :D I do miss that car sometimes. These days I have another JLR product, an SUV, and it to is so far very reliable. Fingers crossed and touch wood :D

I haven't had a Canon for a long time, since the 5D, but as mentioned above I think I remember a hot pixel mapping out thing you could do.

Good luck with all this Gary.
 
woof woof said:
I have to say that my MK1 4ltr Jag S was very reliable. Me and my then GF went all over in it :D I do miss that car sometimes. These days I have another JLR product, an SUV, and it to is so far very reliable. Fingers crossed and touch wood :D

I haven't had a Canon for a long time, since the 5D, but as mentioned above I think I remember a hot pixel mapping out thing you could do.

Good luck with all this Gary.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Alan.

My dad had a Hillman Hunter which lasted for years without any problems.

The pixel mapping procedure, from what I can gather, is purely setting the, "manual sensor cleaning", function, and holding the camera facing down for 30 seconds. I've tried this method several times, but it doesn't fix the issue.

Perhaps, there is another solution, we'll see.
 
Gary Rawlins said:
. Do you think it may have a fan? or an exhaust for expelling hot pixels ;)
Click to expand...
It is largely irrelevant what I may think. Current body size is really too small for dealing with the heat. R5c is a frankenmonster, and presumably compromised on weather sealing. I can't understand why they simply don't make a taller body by 2cm which will allow for air gaps and better heatsink and as a side effect you could actually handhold it comfortably without having to buy an extra £50 worth of Chinese metal from smallrig just to be able to use it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top