*1: For shooting RAW images in [High-speed continuous +], 13-bit A/D conversion will apply regardless of the mode (A, B,
or C).
I would say clearly that is the smoking gun that: A. The customer support person does not understand things to this level of detail, and B. The A/D conversion is at least dropping to 13 bits regardless of what bit depth the actual raw file is stored at.
I would say clearly that is the smoking gun that: A. The customer support person does not understand things to this level of detail, and B. The A/D conversion is at least dropping to 13 bits regardless of what bit depth the actual raw file is stored at.
Based on that wouldn’t it still be possible for ES to do 14 Bit when in single shot and only drop to 12/13 Bit in H+?
p.2 #4 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
Yes, that's what the specs say for continuous shooting, but single shot mode is also available with ES, and there's no official Canon specs or other statement that I'm aware of that single shot electronic shutter drops it from 14 bit to 12 bit, and I've been looking.
CyberDyne wrote:
On an R5, the only option for ES is the full 20 FPS, no?
p.2 #5 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
Using the Electronic Shutter mode seems to have a pretty significant effect on dynamic range...
Jan 25, 2021 at 12:01 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #6 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
Yeah Idk about bit depth, if it's 12 or 14 or whatever, and I don't really remember 100% if it was Canon even, but I've definitely seen iq differences on a testing site ES vs MS, IIRC
Not sure how much difference 12 vs 14 bit makes in actual photos. I'd think it's possible to have really great 12 bit iq and poor 14 bit. Maybe 14 bit still better but not by much, that sort of thing. But I shoot jpegs a lot and they're 8 bit
p.2 #7 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
molson wrote:
Using the Electronic Shutter mode seems to have a pretty significant effect on dynamic range...
That goes away for those of us who shoot sports, WL, BIF at ISO's > 800 for those applications where rolling shutter is not a consideration, it's ES all the way, baby.
If I were shooting landscapes/fashion at low ISO's where DR might be a more important consideration then MS is the ticket.
p.2 #9 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
armd wrote:
That goes away for those of us who shoot sports, WL, BIF at ISO's > 800 for those applications where rolling shutter is not a consideration, it's ES all the way, baby.
If I were shooting landscapes/fashion at low ISO's where DR might be a more important consideration then MS is the ticket.
No kidding. At lower ISO's the DR of the R5 and R6 is worse than some m4/3 cameras if you have to use ES.
p.2 #10 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
EB-1 wrote:
Am I missing why the flying BIFS would be OK with the ES?
The examples at high shutter speeds show wacky wings.
EBH
Not too often on the R5. I can get some wonky wings with hummingbirds but even then I get my preferred wing positions (fully forward or fully back) without any distortion. I still haven't seen wing distortion in other birds yet. I'm waiting to test on swallows in March. Of course you are more likely to see wing distortion the more the bird fills the frame. Swallows are usually fairly small in my frame so I don't think I'll see it on them.
My biggest ES issue on the R5 is leaning vertical lines in the background.
With my A7RIV and Nikon Z I can get all sorts of wacky wing distortion without much effort in ES.
p.2 #11 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
molson wrote:
No kidding. At lower ISO's the DR of the R5 and R6 is worse than some m4/3 cameras if you have to use ES.
Which ones? I had a look through the Olympus and Panasonic recent models and the R5 was either better or at worst dead even for DR at the lowest ISO values. Only the G9 at ISO 320 was higher than the R5 at 320.
But I guess without the R5's baked in RAW NR then the M43 sensors could be slightly better.
Now the R6 is worse than some of the M43...I'll give you that.
p.2 #12 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
As a part of researching this I opened some files in rawdigger and see genuinely random noise even at iso100 1/8000 of a second shutter speed with the lens cap on. I’m curious to know how the NR was determined to be applied at all. And whether the application of NR has changed at some point with a firmware update.
From what I can see, with a dark frame and all NR turned off, there is obvious random noise in the histogram and in the rendered image. I guess if I want to I’ll need to reach out to Bill Claff to discuss.
p.2 #13 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
EB-1 wrote:
Am I missing why the flying BIFS would be OK with the ES?
The examples at high shutter speeds show wacky wings.
EBH
I think the issue of how bad is related to cropping. If you crop alot, you can't see the bends.... If the bird is big in the frame, yep, you get the distortion.
I have not had a problem with ES and bird distortion... I do have a problem with the backgrounds when panning.
p.2 #14 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
This is fun discussing this and all but honestly from my very, very high pixel-peeping of 12-bit vs 14-bit with both Sony and Nikon cameras, it's a moot point. I had to do ridiculously detailed A/B comparisons and the 14-bit honestly only better than the 12-bit shot by a gnat's pube.
I know Sony had some interesting artifacts that would show up under high-contrast night scenes when pushing the 12-bit files, but I think that was an algorithm thing vs. 12-bit being inherently horrible (which it isn't).
p.2 #15 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
CyberDyne wrote:
On an R5, the only option for ES is the full 20 FPS, no?
That shouldn't be the case; but reverse the logic for truth - the only option for 20 fps is ES.
You can still do ES with single-shot (aka 'silent mode') - though I've never tried it on my E6 because the mechanical is so dang smooth
p.2 #16 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
Update from Canon.... I think is the last one... the first two responses were from a different support person... this one is a bit terse in tone. So I don't think I will bug them again. This person appears to have more knowledge. To get this response... besides bugging the crap out of them... was to post the links by Jesse Evans and stanj in my last email to them (thanx Jesse and stan for your effort!).
I think my last email with these two links triggered something behind the scenes... anywho... here is the third response from Canon:
"The primary bit depth for shooting RAW images on the EOS R5 camera is a 14-bit. This is what we present to the public in general when it comes to the bit depth. The RAW image is saved as a 13-bit RAW image when the data goes through the analog to digital conversion process (A/D conversion) when shooting with the high-speed continuous plus (+) mode. The RAW image is saved as a 12-bit RAW when it's processed through the A/D conversion process when shooting with an electronic shutter. The difference between a 12-bit and 14-bit image is very minimal and may not even be noticeable in a majority of pictures.
The information you see on the Canon website is correct with the bit depth for RAW images. Unfortunately, we do not provide additional information with how images are processed through the processor on the camera. For any information regarding image files, formats, etc. we would recommend to view the user guide and any published information available on our Canon website."
So.....
For highest 14-bit quality: Mechanical shutter one shot, continuous, continuous H, but NOT H+
For medium 13-bit quality: Mechanical shutter H+
For lowest 12-bit quality: Electronic shutter any mode
p.2 #17 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
cputeq wrote:
I know Sony had some interesting artifacts that would show up under high-contrast night scenes when pushing the 12-bit files, but I think that was an algorithm thing vs. 12-bit being inherently horrible (which it isn't).
Sony was/is doing destructive compression with their 'raw' files... all of them, except for their uncompressed raw files, which where available, were/are massive and slowed the camera down considerably.
This is in comparison to the losslessly compressed raws that everyone else does, as far as I know. CR2 is an example of lossless compression that works.
So with Sony, you had/have the choice of either throwing data away, or slowing the camera way down by not using any compression. Of course this was noticed because people actually noticed the irreversible artifacts that the process created, and at the time, that were completely unavoidable if shooting Sony before the uncompressed option became available. At least here there's a trade-off!
p.2 #18 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
Bruce n Philly wrote:
Update from Canon.... I think is the last one... the first two responses were from a different support person... this one is a bit terse in tone. So I don't think I will bug them again. This person appears to have more knowledge. To get this response... besides bugging the crap out of them... was to post the links by Jesse Evans and stanj in my last email to them (thanx Jesse and stan for your effort!).
I think my last email with these two links triggered something behind the scenes... anywho... here is the third response from Canon:
"The primary bit depth for shooting RAW images on the EOS R5 camera is a 14-bit. This is what we present to the public in general when it comes to the bit depth. The RAW image is saved as a 13-bit RAW image when the data goes through the analog to digital conversion process (A/D conversion) when shooting with the high-speed continuous plus (+) mode. The RAW image is saved as a 12-bit RAW when it's processed through the A/D conversion process when shooting with an electronic shutter. The difference between a 12-bit and 14-bit image is very minimal and may not even be noticeable in a majority of pictures.
The information you see on the Canon website is correct with the bit depth for RAW images. Unfortunately, we do not provide additional information with how images are processed through the processor on the camera. For any information regarding image files, formats, etc. we would recommend to view the user guide and any published information available on our Canon website."
So.....
For highest 14-bit quality: Mechanical shutter one shot, continuous, continuous H, but NOT H+
For medium 13-bit quality: Mechanical shutter H+
For lowest 12-bit quality: Electronic shutter any mode
Thanks for doing all that! I would say that EFCS is same as MS as everything I’ve seen has said they are the same bit wise. Interesting how they say the difference between 12 and 14 bit is minimal too as I’ve noticed the file sizes to be the same if not larger for ES.
p.2 #19 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
Photosbydlee wrote:
Thanks for doing all that! I would say that EFCS is same as MS as everything I’ve seen has said they are the same bit wise. Interesting how they say the difference between 12 and 14 bit is minimal too as I’ve noticed the file sizes to be the same if not larger for ES.
Perhaps we've dug deep enough to have some evidence that claiming 14-bit files is mostly good marketing copy, but provides little to no actual benefit for the photographer. Just don't send that note to Canon support, Bruce
p.2 #20 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
So quickie question:
Does 1st curtain shutter have less shutter shock than Mechanical?
If 1st does have less, and has full 14-bit (except for H+), then 1st curtain should be the go to mode unless you need 20 fps. In other words, if you value 14-bit.
Or, if you like mechanical, you don't loose anything going to 1st curtain, and gain some sharpness. Or said another way, there is no advantage at all to using Mechanical shutter.
Correct?
UPDATE from Canon: 1st Curtain is just like Mechanical.
