p.1 #1 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
Been doing some reading on the whole topic around Electronic vs Mechanical vs Electronic First Curtain....
The rolling shutter topic takes most of the oxygen BUT saw a note on the Canon site that talks to 14bit RAW on mechanical vs 12bit RAW on electronic. They don't explain what, if any, inferences we should take from that factoid, so not sure what exactly I should do about it.
Is this just a theoretical irrelevance? Should we expect to have material impacts in the shadows/highlights that we should consider shutter mode? Obviously "more" is always better right ;-) but not sure if there is any real impact.
p.1 #2 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
I guess it depends on how hard you manipulate your photos. I have an R6 that drops to 12bit when shooting H+ in MS or EFCS. I didn't even realize it was doing it until I read about it online. I do shoot in lower frame rates as the situation dictates, mainly to keep from having way more shots than I need, and have never once felt my H+ shots were lacking. I think you'd have to do some major post processing, probably on a 10 bit monitor, to see much difference.
p.1 #3 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
I'm no expert, but my rule of thumb is to make sure I'm using the shutter when I'm shooting in situations where I might be wanting to recover shadows or highlights in post and I avoid it at high ISO. I don't use the electronic shutter very much on my EOS R just because it is more susceptible to the affects of rolling shutter due to its relatively slow readout speed, but I do occasionally use it just to save wear and tear on my shutter.
p.1 #5 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
robstein wrote:
Been doing some reading on the whole topic around Electronic vs Mechanical vs Electronic First Curtain....
The rolling shutter topic takes most of the oxygen BUT saw a note on the Canon site that talks to 14bit RAW on mechanical vs 12bit RAW on electronic. They don't explain what, if any, inferences we should take from that factoid, so not sure what exactly I should do about it.
Is this just a theoretical irrelevance? Should we expect to have material impacts in the shadows/highlights that we should consider shutter mode? Obviously "more" is always better right ;-) but not sure if there is any real impact.
The R1, R3 and R5 II don't have the low-bit-depth limitation and presumably some other new cameras won't either.
Most of the difference is in the low-gain mode, so high ISO is not impacted. Essentially there is so much noise that 14 bits is not really needed, though oversampling is not usually a bad thing.
Take a look at the R5 and R5 II DR in the MS and ES modes. You have to copy the URL.
p.1 #6 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
As EB-1 talks about above, it's only applicable to low ISO (e.g. below 800 on R5/R6 era bodies) and then it depends on both your scene and exposure. On my R5 I had it almost always set to 20fps ES, which is 12-bit. I valued having a shot where everyone had their eyes open over a theoretical improvement. But I'm a hobbyist, I can imagine people making money with their shots needing every stop they can get, like real estate. Not having to exposure stack 2 shots would be a huge timesaver.
p.1 #8 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
Admittedly, I'm not much of a fan of the entire R-series. However, it seems to me that it would be nice to have a camera that can do both. The 14-bit allows you to get 4 times the data in each shot over 12-bit, at the cost of some frame rate. Therein lies the rub. If you DO NOT need the frame rate, you may as well shoot 14-bit. If you do need the higher frame rate that 12-bit provides, you need it, realizing the cost is loss of some data.
A similar argument applies to buffer depth vs raw/jpg. If you want the most data, you have to shoot raw. If you want the greatest buffer depth, you have to shoot jpg. All of photography is a compromise. Shoot what serves you best, for that particular shoot.
p.1 #9 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
TomSchriefer wrote:
The 14-bit allows you to get 4 times the data in each shot over 12-bit, at the cost of some frame rate. Therein lies the rub. If you DO NOT need the frame rate, you may as well shoot 14-bit. If you do need the higher frame rate that 12-bit provides, you need it, realizing the cost is loss of some data.
I actually less bothered by the frame rate reduction as in regular use I slow it down so I don't end up with a zillion identical pictures - but the silent shutter that electronic provides is an advantage also, so it's more than frame rate alone.
p.1 #12 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
Mike_5D wrote:
I guess it depends on how hard you manipulate your photos. I have an R6 that drops to 12bit when shooting H+ in MS or EFCS. I didn't even realize it was doing it until I read about it online. I do shoot in lower frame rates as the situation dictates, mainly to keep from having way more shots than I need, and have never once felt my H+ shots were lacking. I think you'd have to do some major post processing, probably on a 10 bit monitor, to see much difference.
robstein wrote:
Been doing some reading on the whole topic around Electronic vs Mechanical vs Electronic First Curtain....
The rolling shutter topic takes most of the oxygen BUT saw a note on the Canon site that talks to 14bit RAW on mechanical vs 12bit RAW on electronic. They don't explain what, if any, inferences we should take from that factoid, so not sure what exactly I should do about it.
Is this just a theoretical irrelevance? Should we expect to have material impacts in the shadows/highlights that we should consider shutter mode? Obviously "more" is always better right ;-) but not sure if there is any real impact.
p.1 #14 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
EB-1 wrote:
I do not suggest CRAW at all. Obviously it is throwing out data from what should be a RAW file.
Most of the bit depth comments are from the 20020 cameras. The 2024 versions like the R5 II are 14 bits.
EBH
CRAW is no different than RAW in the vast majority of shooting situations. When I was testing it for myself. I had to severely underexpose to see a difference in the deepest shadows. Even then, it still looked miles better than JPG.
p.1 #15 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
EB-1 wrote:
I do not suggest CRAW at all. Obviously it is throwing out data from what should be a RAW file.
Most of the bit depth comments are from the 20020 cameras. The 2024 versions like the R5 II are 14 bits.
EBH
Normally CRAW will give me the maze pattern in the deep shadows. First time to see the lines in the bright area why I think it is a result of electronic shutter.
p.1 #16 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
TomSchriefer wrote:
If you want the most data, you have to shoot raw. If you want the greatest buffer depth, you have to shoot jpg. All of photography is a compromise. Shoot what serves you best, for that particular shoot.
Practical advice for all photographers!
Apr 06, 2025 at 06:34 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #17 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
robstein wrote:
Been doing some reading on the whole topic around Electronic vs Mechanical vs Electronic First Curtain....
The rolling shutter topic takes most of the oxygen BUT saw a note on the Canon site that talks to 14bit RAW on mechanical vs 12bit RAW on electronic. They don't explain what, if any, inferences we should take from that factoid, so not sure what exactly I should do about it.
Is this just a theoretical irrelevance? Should we expect to have material impacts in the shadows/highlights that we should consider shutter mode? Obviously "more" is always better right ;-) but not sure if there is any real impact.
p.1 #18 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
Kameratrollet wrote:
Normally CRAW will give me the maze pattern in the deep shadows. First time to see the lines in the bright area why I think it is a result of electronic shutter.
It's not clear which all variables you tested but full factorial is only six (MS, ES, EFCS x RAW, CRAW), so maybe you can test it again if you still have the old R5.
My settings for the R5 were in priority MS for general use, EFCS for flash and vibration-prone static subjects like landscapes with 70-200/4, ES for action needing over 12FPS. EFCS is 13 bits for the lower speeds and that is really harder to distinguish from 14 bots. ES gives grid (jagged) artifacts of the readout at high shutter speeds in additon to the rolling shutter effect.
The R5 II simplifies everything a lot because its ES is not far from MS and the variable FPS allows many options. EFCS is still useful sometimes, especially for flash at 1/250 rather than the 1/160 in ES.
p.1 #19 · Mechanical vs Electronic - Bit Depth - Should I care?
EB-1 wrote:
It's not clear which all variables you tested but full factorial is only six (MS, ES, EFCS x RAW, CRAW), so maybe you can test it again if you still have the old R5.
My settings for the R5 were in priority MS for general use, EFCS for flash and vibration-prone static subjects like landscapes with 70-200/4, ES for action needing over 12FPS. EFCS is 13 bits for the lower speeds and that is really harder to distinguish from 14 bots. ES gives grid (jagged) artifacts of the readout at high shutter speeds in additon to the rolling shutter effect.
The R5 II simplifies everything a lot because its ES is not far from MS and the variable FPS allows many options. EFCS is still useful sometimes, especially for flash at 1/250 rather than the 1/160 in ES.
