Re: Electronic Shutter Artifacts in Sony A9 and Canon 1DX3 Images
osv2 wrote: Scott Stoness wrote: Mike Jacks0n wrote: osv2 wrote:
...
just like the r5 tho, there is little to no advantage in real-world use, especially at the iso200-iso400 range that you are shooting at.
with canon using nr on the r5, i would also be concerned about loss of detail.
Are you saying you don't think the R5 doesn't benefits from 14 bit capture in the 200-400 range or are you saying the A9 II doesn't benefit from it and that range?
Also, any NR issues you are worried about on the R5 I don't really notice. That's not to say it doesn't exist, just to say its very well controlled and a lack of detail is not an issue that I'm finding.
I don't understand the statement either - ISO 100/200/400 is used in later morning or earlier evening in the day sometimes and 14 bit is better than 12 bit (as shown in my link above) for dynamic range. That is real world usage.
i haven't seen any links proving that 14 bit is better at iso200-iso400, can you re-post whatever it is that you are referring to.
The dpreview studio comparison photo's visually show electronic is worse than mechanical in dynamic range. Electronic is 12 bit. Mechanical is 14 bit. I am assuming that the bit rate is causing it.
"
Interesting to look at the review of R6 - it shows that using electronic shutter (12bit) drops the ability to push shadows by about 1- 2 stops (my assessment) vs mechanical shutter (14 bit) non plus (8fps).
This difference is also shown in comparisons between e shutter and mechanical shutter for a9. I am presuming mechanical shutter is "still" not "continous" to measure the maximum dynamic range of the camera.
Sep 17, 2020 at 01:25 PM
Previous versions of Scott Stoness's message #15351012 « Electronic Shutter Artifacts in Sony A9 and Canon 1DX3 Images »
