12-bit vs. 14-bit raw

[DanK]

This is an old topic, discussed here years ago, but I wonder what current thinking is.

I was surprised to see that the new OM systems OM-1 records 12-bit raw, while virtually every other camera I've looked at is now 14-bit. The question is: does it matter? In theory, it could, when editing is extreme. But how often does it result in differences that are noticeable?

I looked at a bunch of sites on which people presented somewhat informal but real-world tests, and the bottom line seems to be:


-- in the great majority of cases, there isn't a clear difference
--in a few very extreme cases, e.g., pulling deep shadows, there are small differences.

Is that right?

I'm still mulling over switching to lighter gear in the fall, depending on how shoulder surgery goes, and the OM-1 (or the rumored OM-5) are still contenders. The Canon r7 would be, despite the mediocre EVF, but only if Canon starts producing some high-quality RF-S lenses, which they haven't done to date. Using the R7 with RF or EF lenses would be throwing out some of the weight advantage of a smaller sensor. That is, I would still get the advantage of carrying shorter focal lengths, but not the advantage of smaller-diameter glass.

[Manfred M]

Dan - I did a lot of testing about 5 years ago when I got my D810. There is a lot more data in the 14-bit file and when working with trying to extract details in the highlight and shadow areas, I could definitely see a difference, especially in images with a high dynamic range. I also found skies were far more likely to have banding issues in 12-bit, when working in the ProPhoto RGB colour space, when pushing that part of the image.

For a "good" subject without a lot of bright highlights and deep shadows, I can get a good print out of a JPEG, although there are subtle differences noticeable in side-by-side comparisons. That was somewhat the same with my 12-bit and 14-bit tests; without the side-by-side look, most people would never notice the difference.

I suspect that the mFT sensor on Olympus, when making larger prints, you may find even more issues, but that is just a pure guess. Medium sized prints with the smaller sensor just seemed to have a lot more issues than I was willing to live with. Granted, the camera I used is 8 years old now and low noise performance was always a bit of an issue for someone who is picky about those issues.

I wonder if it might make sense to see how your shoulder is after you have recovered. It may not be as bit an issues as you are worried about. That is effectively what my experience was. I had major surgery on my foot 10 years ago and needed one arm / hand free to use a cane or walking stick. I continue to use some of the techniques I used back then because they still work for me today, even though I generally have both arms available for photography.

[DanK]

Manfred,

Thanks on both counts.

I was quite startled to see that the OM-1 is only 12 bits. That's rare enough that I hadn't thought to check it out. I stumbled on the information by chance.

Re the surgery: I'll definitely wait until a few months afterwards to decide. That's time anyway for some issues in the market to be resolved. I had a somewhat similar surgery on the other shoulder a couple of decades ago because of a white water kayaking accident, and 6 months later, I was entirely fine. However, this surgery is more complex, and I'm a lot older. And the weight is more of an issue at this age regardless.

I have a hunch that in the end, I'll take the simpler route with less weight loss and replace my ancient 7D with an R7, particularly if the rumored RF-S 16-55mm f/2.8 appears and is both high quality and not too heavy, and keep my 5D IV. That would cost a lot less than switching systems, would allow me to keep whatever I want of my current gear, and would have the easiest learning curve. But I'll sit tight for now.

Dan