>>4373571Very expensive cameras digitize at 16 bits per photosite.
Since bayer interpolation is a thing and it's not uncommon for channels to be severely differently exposed (white balance compensates for this in post-processing) this means only one color channel will be reasonably well exposed at a time, and due to sub-sampling the bit depth is battling diminishing returns to begin with.
Pro level cameras do 14-bits in their RAW.
$10,000+ bodies like some hassleblads and larg(er) format studio cameras do 16-bit RAW.
People think cameras are good and will talk about memes like quantum efficiency and shit but that's all a meme. These sorts of things are usually in reference to the raw sensor sensitivity BEFORE bayer filter shit gets added in, you lose performace from bayer in both sensitivity and in accuracy from the readings so super high bit depth digitization yields little gains. ISO/gain adjusments are the practical solution for digital photography and if you find yourself in a situation where you need more you can probably shoot an HDR sequence with gradual EV steps (-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, +1, +2, +3, +4) and combine them into a 32bit HDR composite file.
For most real use cases outside of stationary macro shots of objects (not breathing moving people) cameras are currently practically limited by their signal to noise not the bit depth, but higher bit depth is more forgiving for "fixitinpost" fags who refuse to use autoISO or set their settings right in camera.
The $10K+ bodies that offer 16-bit do so not out of necessity but out of convenience, letting studiofags keep more of their lazily taken shots with a bit more forgiveness but for anything properly exposed there's very little real world benefit to anything higher than what we've got now. Most modern cams do 14-bit. Even $500 cams.
>>4373579No, you're wrong.
I'd say you're a certified retard but you said "I believe" so you get a free pass. You simply thought wrong, nothing wrong with that.