p.4 #1 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
ES indeed has lower dynamic range but if I understand the photons to photos dr chart correctly that only applies for iso values below 800. At 800 or above this chart shows no significant difference between mechanic and electronic shutter
p.4 #2 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
So I was playing around with the R6 and decided to do a small, not very scientific test and I can see with certainty that there is less DR with ES.
So first up ES
Now EFCS
Now MS
As you can see in the shadows to the left, there is a lot more noise with the ES image compared to the other two. This is all that I did to the image too
p.4 #3 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
I did something similar with my R5, also comparing raw and Craw. There is even banding with the electronic shutter, and the shadows have a different color cast…
Image quality
RAW non-ES > CRAW non-ES > > > RAW ES > CRAW ES
but for regular pictures, craw and electronic shutter is enough (portraits and normal snapshots). But if you want the best quality possible (studio, landscape) it’s better to stick to raw and not use the electronic shutter…
p.4 #4 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
numbertwo wrote:
I did something similar with my R5, also comparing raw and Craw. There is even banding with the electronic shutter, and the shadows have a different color cast…
Image quality
RAW non-ES > CRAW non-ES > > > RAW ES > CRAW ES
but for regular pictures, craw and electronic shutter is enough (portraits and normal snapshots). But if you want the best quality possible (studio, landscape) it’s better to stick to raw and not use the electronic shutter…
Wow didn’t realize you swapped over now too! Yeah I’ve use ES quite a bit but didn’t have any issues with the files. I find myself in EFCS like 97% of the time though but it’s good to know the limitations.
p.4 #5 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
Photosbydlee wrote:
Wow didn’t realize you swapped over now too! Yeah I’ve use ES quite a bit but didn’t have any issues with the files. I find myself in EFCS like 97% of the time though but it’s good to know the limitations.
I was tired of dealing with Sony colors, so I moved to an EOS R first, and the R5 then. I must confess I am 97% of the time shooting CRAW and ES, just to have smaller files and not to wear the shutter too much, and it is more than enough for the kind of snapshots I am shooting most of the time, but it is always good to know the limitations of your equipment. As the weather is so good now here, I am "beaching" more than hiking, so I don't really need the extra bit of DR... Take care with EFCS at high shutter speeds, you know...
p.4 #6 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
I think Canon's response is probably correct, although being incorrect. 98% of folks viewing images taken from MS vs ES won't know one iota of a difference in DR and bitdepth of the images they are seeing, and would likely see more differences in the settings and features turned on that affect the final image in a more visual manner.
p.4 #7 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
The first camera I had that produced 14-bit RAW files was the Canon 1Ds Mark III in 2007. I remember being impressed by how much more malleable they were in post processing.
If you need 20 FPS then maybe 12-bit files are a compromise that must be made, but otherwise the idea of producing 12-bit RAW files 14 years later in 2021 seems insane. It's not as if producing the extra bits cost you anything and you're wasting money if you don't make use of them.
p.4 #8 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
dmcphoto wrote:
The first camera I had that produced 14-bit RAW files was the Canon 1Ds Mark III in 2007. I remember being impressed by how much more malleable they were in post processing.
If you need 20 FPS then maybe 12-bit files are a compromise that must be made, but otherwise the idea of producing 12-bit RAW files 14 years later in 2021 seems insane. It's not as if producing the extra bits cost you anything and you're wasting money if you don't make use of them.
If I was able to see even a 1% improvement in the higher bit files I might care. In my nature photos I see zero difference, so 20 fps wins!
p.4 #9 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
Photosbydlee wrote:
So I was playing around with the R6 and decided to do a small, not very scientific test and I can see with certainty that there is less DR with ES.
Good job. Real data.
My go-to setup is 1st curtain and H. Not H+. I paid for them bits.
p.4 #10 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
It does not “beg the question” (a specific term relating to circular logic). It “raises the question.”
Jesse Evans wrote:
Curious. Of course, you can't just take their word for it, but I tried to check the raw files I have and cannot find a good way to do so. In Sony's raw files they bake in to the file the bit depth that was used during capture. Canon does not include this information.
But, it does beg the question: where did the information that a lower bit depth was used in ES or HS+ Mechanical come from?
Oxford Languages wrote:
1. (of a fact or action) raise a question or point that has not been dealt with; invite an obvious question.
"some definitions of mental illness beg the question of what constitutes normal behavior"
2. assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it.
p.4 #13 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
I find it interesting that there are a few so interested in the number of bits that make up the recording of the raw data. To actually realize the impacts those bits make for you, you have to really post process your images diligently, with the single largest effort being to bring up shadows and take down highlights, thus reducing the overall DR to something that is visually appealing.
Unless you go to these extremes of pushing shadows up 3+ stops in your images AND you have made sure you have pushed your exposure up as far as you can without clipping, these 2 extra bits won't do you one iota of good in your images. The effort here to prove out the Canon documentation is laudable (even to the point of hounding Canon customer service folks that usually don't know the technicals of Canon files), but in the end, if you aren't one of those trying to ultimately make an HDR image from a single frame, you will likely never really utilize the extra data. You have to be in a situation where you push your exposure as far right as you can, and then you still have shadows you want to push up for your final result, where you have > 2 or 3 stops underexposed.
There could be an argument for color as well, but again, post processing comes into play here too. From the picture style or LR defaults you apply to special filters you apply, this means you are post processing your images pretty diligently to eek out the extra available tonality that might be hiding in the file.
Personally, I pay Canon for improved AF, even AF capabilities I didn't even know I needed, high ISO performance where I don't have banding and unnecessary shadow electronically induced noise, burst rates, and other nice automated capabilities that free me to do more of the creative work of framing, getting different perspectives of a subject more easily, and sharp images right out of the camera. Personally, that extra bit or two that feeds RGB values per pixel is at the very bottom of my own personal priority list, because these other things impact my images more profoundly.
The thread has been very interesting though, and I think I might have learned a thing or two, which is always a great take-away. There are much worse things to spend time on, so this was valuable.
p.4 #14 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
I dunno, I want and use those bits all the time.... I never realized it, but I do. It has nothing to do with making HDR images. And I suspect many here do to.
Case in point: Lightening the dark under-wings of birds. This is a common, common thing we bird photographers do all the time.
I am frustrated with eagles, for example... they have a white head and dark feathers... even exposing as far to the right as I can, when I lighten their under-wings, I can get purply, blotchy, noisy mess. Especially after deep cropping.
No, I want those bits. This is not just a techy issue, but has real consequences.
p.4 #15 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
Bruce n Philly wrote:
I dunno, I want and use those bits all the time.... I never realized it, but I do. It has nothing to do with making HDR images. And I suspect many here do to.
Case in point: Lightening the dark under-wings of birds. This is a common, common thing we bird photographers do all the time.
I am frustrated with eagles, for example... they have a white head and dark feathers... even exposing as far to the right as I can, when I lighten their under-wings, I can get purply, blotchy, noisy mess. Especially after deep cropping.
No, I want those bits. This is not just a techy issue, but has real consequences.
Maybe it's a 'Canon' thing still. I remember testing 12 vs 14 bits extensively with my former D750 (what a great camera) -- there was nil difference, and I was testing in similar dark, shadow-raising situations. It would have taken extreme A/B comparisons to barely tell a difference with that camera, so I kept it on 12 bit for the speed. Haven't tried with the R6 though.
p.4 #16 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
Bruce n Philly wrote:
I dunno, I want and use those bits all the time.... I never realized it, but I do. It has nothing to do with making HDR images. And I suspect many here do to.
Case in point: Lightening the dark under-wings of birds. This is a common, common thing we bird photographers do all the time.
I am frustrated with eagles, for example... they have a white head and dark feathers... even exposing as far to the right as I can, when I lighten their under-wings, I can get purply, blotchy, noisy mess. Especially after deep cropping.
No, I want those bits. This is not just a techy issue, but has real consequences.
Those blotchy messes have much less to do with extra bits. They have just about EVERYTHING to do with how the sensor is designed and the data makes it from capture to the file through the A/D converter, etc. What cameras do you have again that do this still?
A stacked BSI sensor is usually much better than previous designs, something Sony did long ago before Canon started to change their sensor roadmap.
The 6D, 7D2, 5D4, and other models have greatly improved without having more bits. Even the SL2 can be pushed 3 stops or so without the old blotchy mess of past Canon sensors, but newer bodies do much better. I haven't yet tried similar activities with my R6 yet though.
p.4 #17 · R5/R6 Bit Depth, MS vs ES - Canon says NO DIFFERENCE
TeamSpeed wrote:
Those blotchy messes have much less to do with extra bits. They have just about EVERYTHING to do with how the sensor is designed and the data makes it from capture to the file through the A/D converter, etc. What cameras do you have again that do this still?
A stacked BSI sensor is usually much better than previous designs, something Sony did long ago before Canon started to change their sensor roadmap.
The 6D, 7D2, 5D4, and other models have greatly improved without having more bits. Even the SL2 can be pushed 3 stops or so without the old blotchy mess of past Canon sensors, but newer bodies do much better. I haven't yet tried similar activities with my R6 yet though.
The above photo (with its two alternating versions) is a good example of just how spoiled we are these days! ;-)
It is also a fine example of how far we can push our bits around to get usable and even great images out of scenes that would have required multiple exposures or fill flash in the past.
Your example is faster and more immediate, but I wrote an article with some examples of what can be done a few years back. (And my example uses an older camera — I think it was my 5DII but it might even have been my 5D.)
While more dynamic range (not at the expense of other useful qualities) is a good and. useful thing, I've long been somewhat baffled by the widespread notion that camera DR has limited us in some significant way. Digital images from the past decider or so have actually been quite malleable, and especially if you shoot with this in mind you can handle some pretty crazy situations with them.
