Electronic Shutter and the R3, are the benefits limited?

I have been trying to figure out what the benefit of the Electronic Shutter might be. The advertised 30 fps sounds blazing fast. But I am hearing negatives about the way electronic shutters work.

It is my understanding that you get the rolling shutter effect when using the Electronic Shutter on moving objects, to the point of warped items in the picture.

The major reason I would want more fps would be for moving action, it sounds like I would be stuck with 12fps for the Mechanical Shutter which is the same as R5.

I found this information:

CONS of electronic shutter

• Not suitable for fast-moving subjects
• Distortion of subjects
• Banding under artificial light
• Cannot use flash

Here is a bit more from the same site:

When to use
An electronic shutter can be beneficial in the right circumstances, particularly when you need the camera to be silent in operation.
However, whilst a wedding or a golf tournament might seem like obvious places for silent operation, the movement of a golf club swing or the artificial lights at an indoors wedding in fact make both unsuitable for using the electronic shutter feature.
And even though an electronic shutter may offer super-fast shutter speeds, this really is negated by the fact that subjects for which you might need fast shutter speeds – such as fast-moving action – are completely unsuitable for shooting with the electronic shutter mode.
So, in fact, its usage is limited really to situations where the vibrations of a mechanical shutter are a problem, such as macro photography. And, with cameras such as the EOS R5 – with its 45MP sensor – any small amount of movement will show with such a high resolution sensor.
In conclusion, electronic shutters have their uses, but cannot currently replace the mechanical shutter.

Not exactly. A golf swing is over a hundred miles per hour. Thats really fast! And this can many times be over a fairly broad area of the sensor. So you are really maximizing any rolling shutter affect dramatically. And I dare say you don't typically need 30 fps for something like golf, really you can just time your shots just fine or just use 12 FPS mechanical. Which is not exactly slow either.

I'm not one to talk to much about it since I don't own one. But I used the electronic shutter on the 1Dx III and it was fine for anything I could throw at it, which was ice skating and people moving running ect. I never noticed an issue with using it. Including indoor lighting.

Also the scan rate is dramatically faster than that of the R5 or R6. So it makes it even more usable.

Banding can be avoided by using the right shutter speed, this could be annoying. But again, I'm not the right one to talk to about that since I didn't shoot video in indoor lights. I only shot one little video while it was snowing just for giggles and I don't even know if I uploaded it to the computer. I'm about as anti video user as it gets. Lol. Besides that it is no worse off than the many cameras that shot video before it.

But those that have some mirrorless bodies can speak on the subject with much more authority than me. I can only relate using the 1Dx III and 5D IV. But I didn't find myself using the electronic shutter much simply because I didn't need the speed or the quietness.

But speaking for myself, even 16 fps was grossly overkill and I shot a lot with it on the medium speed setting (What ever the FPS that is). 30, it's awesome. But if I'm being realistic, I don't think I really need it that fast. 20 Is already blistering for my use! Fastest thing I can think of is a bird in flight, and even 16 is more than capable, for me anyway.

I would think sports or action shooters are the primary ones who would have a legit use for that level of speed. And of course your shooting style.

All I can say is that I missed the mark on the innovation. I was expecting Sony or Canon to come out with an 'inexpensive' global electronic shutter. They are clearly getting closer w/ very fast read times but not really there yet.

RE: golf. distance over the sensor is likely a culprit - a full frame golf swing, I completely agree that at the point of club head/ball contact 100 mph is pretty likely 120 for the pros. So 120 mph/3600 seconds/hr x 5280 feet = 176 feet per second. /1000 =.176 feet*12 = 2+ inches. even at 8000th it is an 1/8 inch. Going to be blurry even w/ Mechanical depending on how much of the sensor the club head takes up.

Excellent post Busted Knuckles!

I would add, that this is a relevant place for the 1Dx III to shine.

Think about it, you get 20fps mechanical vs 12. Now is that unusable? No. But having used the 1Dx III. It is a substantial difference and I would dare say a bigger improvement compared to even 20 vs 30fps.

12 fps is over 50% slower than 20. But 20 fps is only 33% slower than 30.

So it does boil down to your needs. But I will say, with all the improvements of the R3, it's gonna be really hard for anyone to make that trade off if they are a working pro and deal with fast action all the time.

In my case, I think a good used 1Dx III might be a better value for my use since I don't want to switch over to RF mount just yet. I'm pretty happy with most of the EF glass. And I can pick up a 1Dx III body for a significant discount used. I have been seeing them lately on local classifieds for $4500. VS $6000 + tax. And many times I'm getting extra batteries and memory cards on top. Which are just a bonus.

I really didn't have much to add to the discussion, but thought I'd share. I have the R and the 3 to 5 FPS mechanical (don't remember what it is supposed to be) I get when tracking isn't ideal for sports, so I tried the electronic silent shutter. I shoot a lot of soccer and don't really like shooting with my 80D anymore (need to upgrade to the R6). If the action isn't that fast, then it works okay. Usually it is just the ball that looks funny, but then you get photos like this... I know it is terrible composition and clearly a throwaway. I had a ref just to the right of me.
https://www.alderimages.com/img/s/v-...59833508-5.jpg

Jason...that is as ugly as a rolling shutter example as I have seen. Yikes.

As for the R3, here is an example supplied by Canon:

Attachment 2922

As already calculated above, gold heads are moving fast...a pretty extreme case. But, Canon has made significant strides lately. I've played with it a bit and have not noticed a rolling shutter effect with the R5, and the R3 is reportedly much better.

The thing is it is the extreme fast action that I usually would use high fps.
Neither of examples of the golf swing is acceptable IMO.

Fair enough. It is what it is. Until there is a true global shutter, there is always a chance for distortion from a rolling shutter.

This is one area where the 1DXIII still holds the crown, with 16 fps mechanical, vs 12 fps on the R3/5/6.

As for the global shutter, it is speculation as to when we'll have it as an option. I can see it as a distinguishing feature of an R1, and potentially one reason Canon has held off so far. I do wonder if the R1 has a global shutter, if it will be high MP, as more data just makes a global shutter more difficult.

It's even bigger than that, if you shoot live view. You can get 20fps mechanical. If you are shooting on a tripod or mono pod. This is quite doable. If hand held you can just use it hand held, which can work depending on the lens or use a Rear LCD viewfinder deal. I forget what it is called precisely.

That's a very big improvement.

But, and this is a big but. You have to ask yourself. Do I really need even 20fps? Even 16 is very fast. 20 is just crazy. 30 is just out of this world fast!

I know there are photogs that can use it, but I dare say many of us hobbiests (Although I am starting to transition to being a proper professional photographer) might not need 30.

Just a thought.

Hee hee hee in an evil laugh.... wonder of the guys at magic lanturn are fiddling with a r5? I used ML on a 5d3 to speed up the effective shutter speed of video.