Switch to a9II for event work?

[Jacques Cornell]

Now that the prices of used a9IIs have dropped below $2000, I'm pondering whether I wouldn't be better off with a pair of them plus an a7CR (for Crop Mode with primes in event work and high-rez in scenic work), instead of my current a7IV, a7RV and a7C. The main draw is ability to shoot with electronic shutter all the time. For any a9II shooters out there, a couple of questions:

1) Can the a9II shoot flash with electronic shutter? I think the a1 does, with some limitations.

2) Does the stacked sensor really eliminate banding under flickering artificial light? It's a challenge that comes up for me every once in a blue moon and has me using mechanical shutter all the time because I can't risk it.

I'm happy with my current AF performance, and I certainly don't need more than 10fps, so those "benefits" of the a9II aren't relevant to me. But, I'd love to be able to work entirely with electronic shutter.

Thanks!

 

[ray_burnimage]

I was less than impressed with A9II's performance with banding. Truth be told, I don't find my A1's much better either - they either take circa 1 second to recognise flicker/banding, or don't recognise it at all.

You don't need to use the flicker modes on A1 very often. If at all.

From my experience, the A9III is the only Sony that comes close to the performance of the R3 here.

You found a solution for your needs by adding an R3.

A cheaper solution might have been to read the A1 manual and learn the camera, which is free......

Why the condescending comments? Where does it say in the manual "Anti-flicker is not particularly effective, and takes seconds for it to recognise flicker in a scene"? If you could point me to the exact page, that'd be great.

You only need to resort to any of the anti flicker modes in extreme circumstances as a last resort.

As an A1 owner you knew that, right?

Of course, buying an R3 to solve a problem you didn't have is an option and the one you chose.

That is not condescending..... it's simply a fact

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Now that the prices of used a9IIs have dropped below $2000, I'm pondering whether I wouldn't be better off with a pair of them plus an a7CR (for Crop Mode with primes in event work and high-rez in scenic work), instead of my current a7IV, a7RV and a7C. The main draw is ability to shoot with electronic shutter all the time. For any a9II shooters out there, a couple of questions:

1) Can the a9II shoot flash with electronic shutter? I think the a1 does, with some limitations.

No it cannot, whereas the A1 can. The only limitation is 1/200th in silent shutter on A1, with 1/400th in mechanical.

2) Does the stacked sensor really eliminate banding under flickering artificial light? It's a challenge that comes up for me every once in a blue moon and has me using mechanical shutter all the time because I can't risk it.

For normal 50/60hz yep, with some zany LED lighting banding can occasionally be an issue on A9II. The A1 again does better here with even faster readout speed etc.

I'm happy with my current AF performance, and I certainly don't need more than 10fps, so those "benefits" of the a9II aren't relevant to me. But, I'd love to be able to work entirely with electronic shutter.

I traded my way from a pair of used A9II’s to a pair of used A1’s over time. They were great but the A1’s are perfect and I certainly don’t need a 61mp camera now. I think if you have the budget for a pair of A9II’s for event work I’d consider investing the same cash in one used A1 to start with….. because, trust me, that’s where you’ll inevitably end up eventually anyway! That also depends on how many bodies you need of course!

Thanks!

Thanks. What makes you favor the A1 over the a9II?

Thanks for the detailed response. My takes below.

MAIN REASONS

1. The main reason is simply 50mp vs 24mp and lack of AA filter (I can see the difference)

Yeah, but my event work goes on social media at 2048px.

2. Outside of my movie stills work I do street and travel for fun and my signature style is cropped square. That's 16mp on A9II vs 33mp on A1. A big difference.

3. DX mode, which I know you use as do I..... on your 61mp camera you are used to enjoying 26mp in crop mode. I find 21mp on A1 in crop mode to be equally usable. But 11mp on A9II? Not so much. Your primes are less useful here.

I'm now recommitted to three bodies so I can mount three primes for part of my work. I really need only one of them to be high-rez, so an a7CR would take care of that.

4. At one point I had 2 xA9II and 1x A7Rv... It was a constant battle for me of stacked sensor vs rolling shutter. It became apparent that the A7Rv was of no use for my professional work, and unusable for my street photography where I always shoot silent too.

5. For these reasons I traded up from 3 bodies to 2 over time and I couldn't be happier! From 2 x A9II and 1 x A7Rv to 2 x A1.

I moved last year from three with primes to two with zooms, but now I want to mix and match according to conditions. Plus, I really like working with three primes some of the time.

6. The A1 has a sensor readout speed of 1/250th vs 1/160th of A9II... this widens the envelope of banding free silent shooting.... see more below.

Sounds like this would solve my (rare) issues with environmental lighting, but maybe not with digital displays and projectors (which scan), so maybe not the silver bullet I've been wishing for.

7. I wanted cameras that met all my needs both professionally and for personal work. Given that, the A1's are an obvious choice for ME. I now no longer have that "which body to pick" conundrum

Oh God, I hear ya loud and clear.

, plus ease of setting up both identically via saved settings to card.

a7IV and a7RV have nearly identical controls, and I can live with my a7C being different, as I'll essentially weld my 24/1.8 to it for event work. It'll double as my casual walkabout/vacation camera, for which it's not an issue.

SECONDARY REASONS

1. The A1 has the newer menus. I didn't mind the old menu, but didn't like mixing both.

2. The A1 is significantly faster in startup, operation etc.

3. The EVF..... if you already have an A7Rv you'll know what I mean, the A1 has the same one. The A9II EVF is nice.... until you use an A1/A7Rv

In my event work, I don't even notice the difference between a7IV and a7RV EVF, largely because low light levels make the EVF pretty grainy.

4. The WB sensor..... is separate on the front of the camera like the a7Rv and seems to be much better when relying on AWB.

I haven't noticed any difference between a7IV and a7RV. Plus, event color is all over the place anyway.

5. Eye AF... Sony claim 30% improved on A1 vs A9II, seems about right to me. Although AI chip on A7Rv is better still. In reality, for people photography, A9II is still state of the art. Newer bodies simply enhance this a bit.

a7IV is as good as I need. I don't notice a difference.

6. Lossless compressed RAW (my only shooting format) - missing on A9II.

Don't need it for events. Can't even use mRAW (sad trombone) for low-light event work because it's incompatible with DxO and Adobe's AI NR.

7. Movie record button can be custom mapped for stills on A1, not on A9II.

Yay/Bleah.

A minor thing but a wasted button at your fingertips for stills if using A9II.

8. Dynamic range, noise and IQ - better on A1 by a significant margin IMO vs A9II.

Interesting.

As I read and think things through, it occurs to me that a stacked sensor will probably be helpful with flickering lights, such as ceiling LEDs in office environments, but probably won’t with scanning panels, such as large digital displays. Can you shed any light on this?

1. You shoot events in a wider range of situations to me ... on film sets I haven't yet run into impossible lighting.

2. I did run into silent mode banding for nighttime travel photography in India with my A9II's. The A1 reduces such instances significantly due to its MUCH faster readout.

Very interesting.

3. However, an easy way to look at it.... The amount of flicker banding mitigation you can do with MECHANICAL shutter using A7Rv can be equally achieved with A1 in SILENT shutter. That's the best way I can describe it from a practical point of view.

That's a very illuminating explanation. Thanks!

SUMMARY

For you, shooting events, it comes down to whether you WANT or NEED silent shooting?

If you simply WANT it, A9II will do it, but you will be possibly taking a step backwards to get it from what you have now.

But if you NEED it, the A9II will deliver, but the A1 will be the ultimate satisfaction and the better better "do it all" long term solution.

In your shoes I'd either stick with what I have or figure out a way to trade a couple of bodies for a used A1. Again, you'll end up there anyway (IMO)!!

I'm not trading 2-for-1, so it looks like I'll have to save my pennies and wait for used prices to drop.

Thanks for a very clear, practical and exhaustive explanation. You've really helped me figure this out. Two a1s on my next-year shopping list.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Thanks, guys.

I think I know the answer to this, but can you help me get clear on it?

I'm assuming that even the a9III's global shutter won't solve the problem of large panel digital displays, because they scan/refresh at 50/60Hz and the only way to capture the entire screen without ghastly moiré is to use a shutter speed of 1/60s or longer. Does this sound right? Would an a9II or a1 help here? Any real-world experience to confirm this?

I recently shot a conference where the entire backdrop behind the stage was a huge grid of these panels, and it was a real bugger. Prevented me from shooting at a distance because the required slow shutter (WITH full mechanical shutter) ruled out long focal lengths with moving subjects onstage, so I had to shoot from the middle of the audience instead of the back of the room, and some grumpy old mushroom chewed me out for obstructing the view. Argh!

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I was less than impressed with A9II's performance with banding. Truth be told, I don't find my A1's much better either - they either take circa 1 second to recognise flicker/banding, or don't recognise it at all.

You don't need to use the flicker modes on A1 very often. If at all.

From my experience, the A9III is the only Sony that comes close to the performance of the R3 here.

You found a solution for your needs by adding an R3.

A cheaper solution might have been to read the A1 manual and learn the camera, which is free......

Why the condescending comments? Where does it say in the manual "Anti-flicker is not particularly effective, and takes seconds for it to recognise flicker in a scene"? If you could point me to the exact page, that'd be great.

You only need to resort to any of the anti flicker modes in extreme circumstances as a last resort.

I leave it on all the time. Any downside?

As an A1 owner you knew that, right?

Of course, buying an R3 to solve a problem you didn't have is an option and the one you chose.

That is not condescending..... it's simply a fact

Now, now, let's be nice here.

 

[ray_burnimage]

From your answers to my answers it sounds like 3 bodies are your important criteria and I'm not hearing anything that suggests you need silent shutter anyway, aside from a "nice to have?"

It's a bit different for me because silent shutter is mandatory ... not a nice to have.

Reading back through your responses I do wonder if 3 x A7Rv or even 3 x A7iv might not be a better choice?

3 identical bodies are great if for no other reason than you can export/import settings and ensure all bodies are always identically setup!

Also, by migrating to 3 x cheaper full sized but identical bodies, you could also keep your A7cr for personal work/a 4th body.

In summary, I'm not sure what a migration path to used A1's would add for your use case over 3 "lesser spec" but identical bodies?

 

[ray_burnimage]

Thanks, guys.

I think I know the answer to this, but can you help me get clear on it?

I'm assuming that even the a9III's global shutter won't solve the problem of large panel digital displays, because they scan/refresh at 50/60Hz and the only way to capture the entire screen without ghastly moiré is to use a shutter speed of 1/60s or longer. Does this sound right?

The A9III will solve this problem and is the only camera on the market that will. That's a benefit of global shutter, but at a massive price!

Would an a9II or a1 help here? Any real-world experience to confirm this?

With an A7Rv you could solve this problem to a degree by switching to variable shutter in mechanical mode and micro adjusting the shutter speed until flickering disappears on rear screen/EVF.

You can do exactly the same with A1, but in silent mode.

Or, as said, buy an A9III and forget it!

I recently shot a conference where the entire backdrop behind the stage was a huge grid of these panels, and it was a real bugger. Prevented me from shooting at a distance because the required slow shutter (WITH full mechanical shutter) ruled out long focal lengths with moving subjects onstage, so I had to shoot from the middle of the audience instead of the back of the room, and some grumpy old mushroom chewed me out for obstructing the view. Argh!

 

[Jacques Cornell]

From your answers to my answers it sounds like 3 bodies are your important criteria and I'm not hearing anything that suggests you need silent shutter anyway, aside from a "nice to have?"

Well, being able to shoot silent in conference rooms that have LED ceiling lights would be a big help. Not strictly necessary, but very nice.

It's a bit different for me because silent shutter is mandatory ... not a nice to have.

Reading back through your responses I do wonder if 3 x A7Rv or even 3 x A7iv might not be a better choice?

Nah. If I'm not going stacked, what I have is great. The a7C will have a 24/1.8 on it all the time at events, as it's a small, light set that rides easily on a neck strap. My a7IV essentially has a 35-150 welded to it. My a7RV has a 20-40 most of the time, but I can put an 85/1.4 on it and get 130/2.0 with Crop Mode, while a 35/1.4 rides on the a7IV. Or, in closer quarters I swap this, putting the 35/1.4 on the a7RV and get 52/2.0 with Crop mode to fill the gap between it and the 85/1.4 on the a7RV. Controls on the a7IV and a7RV are essentially identical, which was a key reason for pairing these two.

When I'm out doing walkabout scenics, the a7C goes with the 20-40 and a 50-300.

3 identical bodies are great if for no other reason than you can export/import settings and ensure all bodies are always identically setup!

Yeah, I previously had three a7RIIIs. But, I'm fine with the a7C being different.

Also, by migrating to 3 x cheaper full sized but identical bodies, you could also keep your A7cr for personal work/a 4th body.

If I'm not going stacked, I'm not getting an a7CR any time soon. If I really want high-rez for personal work, I'll take the a7RV.

In summary, I'm not sure what a migration path to used A1's would add for your use case over 3 "lesser spec" but identical bodies?

My whole goal with a pair of a1s would be to shoot silent, while retaining the ability to use flash at times, in LED-lit conference rooms. Given the a1's high rez, an a7C would remain sufficient for a third/casual body. I dithered over an a7CII but decided to save $1000 for other things.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Thanks, guys.

I think I know the answer to this, but can you help me get clear on it?

I'm assuming that even the a9III's global shutter won't solve the problem of large panel digital displays, because they scan/refresh at 50/60Hz and the only way to capture the entire screen without ghastly moiré is to use a shutter speed of 1/60s or longer. Does this sound right?

The A9III will solve this problem and is the only camera on the market that will. That's a benefit of global shutter, but at a massive price!

You really think so? Wouldn't it still require a slow shutter to capture the panel's full scan, as a mechanical shutter does? Is this in any way different from the challenge, back in the Paleolithic Era, of capturing CRT displays?

Would an a9II or a1 help here? Any real-world experience to confirm this?

With an A7Rv you could solve this problem to a degree by switching to variable shutter in mechanical mode and micro adjusting the shutter speed until flickering disappears on rear screen/EVF.

I often see far more moiré on displays/projections in the EVF than I do in the captured image. I don't think the issue is flickering, but scan rate. Do you know what I mean? Have you seen rainbow moiré on images projected onto a screen over/behind a stage by a digital projector? I get the same thing, sometimes, with large digital display panels, as well.

You can do exactly the same with A1, but in silent mode.

Or, as said, buy an A9III and forget it!

I recently shot a conference where the entire backdrop behind the stage was a huge grid of these panels, and it was a real bugger. Prevented me from shooting at a distance because the required slow shutter (WITH full mechanical shutter) ruled out long focal lengths with moving subjects onstage, so I had to shoot from the middle of the audience instead of the back of the room, and some grumpy old mushroom chewed me out for obstructing the view. Argh!

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[ray_burnimage]

From your answers to my answers it sounds like 3 bodies are your important criteria and I'm not hearing anything that suggests you need silent shutter anyway, aside from a "nice to have?"

Well, being able to shoot silent in conference rooms that have LED ceiling lights would be a big help. Not strictly necessary, but very nice.

It's a bit different for me because silent shutter is mandatory ... not a nice to have.

Reading back through your responses I do wonder if 3 x A7Rv or even 3 x A7iv might not be a better choice?

Nah. If I'm not going stacked, what I have is great. The a7C will have a 24/1.8 on it all the time at events, as it's a small, light set that rides easily on a neck strap. My a7IV essentially has a 35-150 welded to it. My a7RV has a 20-40 most of the time, but I can put an 85/1.4 on it and get 130/2.0 with Crop Mode, while a 35/1.4 rides on the a7IV. Or, in closer quarters I swap this, putting the 35/1.4 on the a7RV and get 52/2.0 with Crop mode to fill the gap between it and the 85/1.4 on the a7RV. Controls on the a7IV and a7RV are essentially identical, which was a key reason for pairing these two.

When I'm out doing walkabout scenics, the a7C goes with the 20-40 and a 50-300.

3 identical bodies are great if for no other reason than you can export/import settings and ensure all bodies are always identically setup!

Yeah, I previously had three a7RIIIs. But, I'm fine with the a7C being different.

Also, by migrating to 3 x cheaper full sized but identical bodies, you could also keep your A7cr for personal work/a 4th body.

If I'm not going stacked, I'm not getting an a7CR any time soon. If I really want high-rez for personal work, I'll take the a7RV.

In summary, I'm not sure what a migration path to used A1's would add for your use case over 3 "lesser spec" but identical bodies?

My whole goal with a pair of a1s would be to shoot silent, while retaining the ability to use flash at times, in LED-lit conference rooms. Given the a1's high rez, an a7C would remain sufficient for a third/casual body. I dithered over an a7CII but decided to save $1000 for other things.

In that case, I'd simply stick with what you have. You've not really got a compelling need for silent shutter, and 3 bodies are clearly important to you. No contest!

 

[Locutus001]

Thanks, guys.

I think I know the answer to this, but can you help me get clear on it?

I'm assuming that even the a9III's global shutter won't solve the problem of large panel digital displays, because they scan/refresh at 50/60Hz and the only way to capture the entire screen without ghastly moiré is to use a shutter speed of 1/60s or longer. Does this sound right?

The A9III will solve this problem and is the only camera on the market that will. That's a benefit of global shutter, but at a massive price!

You really think so? Wouldn't it still require a slow shutter to capture the panel's full scan, as a mechanical shutter does? Is this in any way different from the challenge, back in the Paleolithic Era, of capturing CRT displays?

--> global shutter --> you'll capture ALL the available light at that exact moment. The process of reading out the sensor line by line (or of the curtain going from top to buttom or the other way around... I don't knot ;-) ) is the reason for the banding. So having all the light enter at the exact same moment will solve the banding issue. Yes.

You either get ALL the light or NONE ;-) Where you have seen banding with other sensors you will see a variety of different lighted situations (including LEDs being "off").

To compare it to non global shutter cameras: It's as if you'd take a picture of just one single LED-light.

 

[ray_burnimage]

Thanks, guys.

I think I know the answer to this, but can you help me get clear on it?

I'm assuming that even the a9III's global shutter won't solve the problem of large panel digital displays, because they scan/refresh at 50/60Hz and the only way to capture the entire screen without ghastly moiré is to use a shutter speed of 1/60s or longer. Does this sound right?

The A9III will solve this problem and is the only camera on the market that will. That's a benefit of global shutter, but at a massive price!

You really think so? Wouldn't it still require a slow shutter to capture the panel's full scan, as a mechanical shutter does? Is this in any way different from the challenge, back in the Paleolithic Era, of capturing CRT displays?

No, the A9III with global shutter solves all these issues.... at any shutter speed, in any lighting. For a mere £6000

Would an a9II or a1 help here? Any real-world experience to confirm this?

With an A7Rv you could solve this problem to a degree by switching to variable shutter in mechanical mode and micro adjusting the shutter speed until flickering disappears on rear screen/EVF.

I often see far more moiré on displays/projections in the EVF than I do in the captured image. I don't think the issue is flickering, but scan rate. Do you know what I mean? Have you seen rainbow moiré on images projected onto a screen over/behind a stage by a digital projector? I get the same thing, sometimes, with large digital display panels, as well.

You can do exactly the same with A1, but in silent mode.

Or, as said, buy an A9III and forget it!

I recently shot a conference where the entire backdrop behind the stage was a huge grid of these panels, and it was a real bugger. Prevented me from shooting at a distance because the required slow shutter (WITH full mechanical shutter) ruled out long focal lengths with moving subjects onstage, so I had to shoot from the middle of the audience instead of the back of the room, and some grumpy old mushroom chewed me out for obstructing the view. Argh!

 

[Jacques Cornell]

From your answers to my answers it sounds like 3 bodies are your important criteria and I'm not hearing anything that suggests you need silent shutter anyway, aside from a "nice to have?"

Well, being able to shoot silent in conference rooms that have LED ceiling lights would be a big help. Not strictly necessary, but very nice.

It's a bit different for me because silent shutter is mandatory ... not a nice to have.

Reading back through your responses I do wonder if 3 x A7Rv or even 3 x A7iv might not be a better choice?

Nah. If I'm not going stacked, what I have is great. The a7C will have a 24/1.8 on it all the time at events, as it's a small, light set that rides easily on a neck strap. My a7IV essentially has a 35-150 welded to it. My a7RV has a 20-40 most of the time, but I can put an 85/1.4 on it and get 130/2.0 with Crop Mode, while a 35/1.4 rides on the a7IV. Or, in closer quarters I swap this, putting the 35/1.4 on the a7RV and get 52/2.0 with Crop mode to fill the gap between it and the 85/1.4 on the a7RV. Controls on the a7IV and a7RV are essentially identical, which was a key reason for pairing these two.

When I'm out doing walkabout scenics, the a7C goes with the 20-40 and a 50-300.

3 identical bodies are great if for no other reason than you can export/import settings and ensure all bodies are always identically setup!

Yeah, I previously had three a7RIIIs. But, I'm fine with the a7C being different.

Also, by migrating to 3 x cheaper full sized but identical bodies, you could also keep your A7cr for personal work/a 4th body.

If I'm not going stacked, I'm not getting an a7CR any time soon. If I really want high-rez for personal work, I'll take the a7RV.

In summary, I'm not sure what a migration path to used A1's would add for your use case over 3 "lesser spec" but identical bodies?

My whole goal with a pair of a1s would be to shoot silent, while retaining the ability to use flash at times, in LED-lit conference rooms. Given the a1's high rez, an a7C would remain sufficient for a third/casual body. I dithered over an a7CII but decided to save $1000 for other things.

In that case, I'd simply stick with what you have. You've not really got a compelling need for silent shutter, and 3 bodies are clearly important to you. No contest!

You are right, of course. It’s just that on those few occasions when I run into this issue at event venues, and I’m cursing the lighting techs, an a1 seems mighty enticing.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[ray_burnimage]

You are right, of course. It’s just that on those few occasions when I run into this issue at event venues, and I’m cursing the lighting techs, an a1 seems mighty enticing.

The A7Rv has tools to mitigate this in mechanical shutter, all the A1 adds is the same tools in silent shutter. It really is as simple as that!

The A9III eliminates all of it..... but I don't want one, even if offered at 30% discount!

 

[Sundre]

Thanks, guys.

I think I know the answer to this, but can you help me get clear on it?

I'm assuming that even the a9III's global shutter won't solve the problem of large panel digital displays, because they scan/refresh at 50/60Hz and the only way to capture the entire screen without ghastly moiré is to use a shutter speed of 1/60s or longer. Does this sound right? Would an a9II or a1 help here? Any real-world experience to confirm this?

I recently shot a conference where the entire backdrop behind the stage was a huge grid of these panels, and it was a real bugger. Prevented me from shooting at a distance because the required slow shutter (WITH full mechanical shutter) ruled out long focal lengths with moving subjects onstage, so I had to shoot from the middle of the audience instead of the back of the room, and some grumpy old mushroom chewed me out for obstructing the view. Argh!

I have used the A9iii on a few occasions, and it didn't have any banding issues no matter what kind of light I was dealing with, including these LED displays.

Not only does it capture its image data instantly, it has some clever software checking the frame for flicker - including LED flicker - and taking a few frames insanely fast, then only keeping a frame with no flicker.

I don't know how it does that exactly, but in my experience, it works flawlessly: You point the camera, take the shot, and it will magically be entirely flicker free under all circumstances.

I tested it at a couple of venues alongside my old A9, and where the A9 had banding, the A9iii never did.

The A1 should be able to detect flicker and adjust automatically to avoid banding, and the 1/250s sensor scan speed helps significantly.

But there are venues where you have multiple LED lights all flickering at wildly different frequencies, and no camera can adjust for every single one of them. The A9iii doesn't have to, the rest do.

In a worst case scenario, the kind of LED wall with multiple displays you encountered could have different flicker rates in different parts of the wall at the same time.

In technical terms, unlike old school flicker, LED flicker isn't 50/60 Hz, and it has nothing with AC/DC frequency to do.

LED flicker is caused by dimmers which reduce LED brightness by rapidly turning the light on and off (pulse width modulation, PWM).

This is invisible to the human eye and simply looks like reducing brightness. But cameras can see it. It only becomes an issue with certain kinds of dimmers, some are capable of producing very dim light with no banding.

It's criminal that not only are LED light manufacturers getting away with it, they typically don't even tell the buyer which refresh frequencies their lights can exhibit.

And all because the only person affected by it is the photographer. It doesn't seem to affect mobile phones, presumably because their sensors are tiny with extremely quick scan times.

Since I can't afford an A9iii and I will have to deal with LED banding from time to time, I take some extra shots when I notice banding, because typically, the brightness of the LED lights/displays goes up and down all the time - so even if there is banding in some photos, chances are, there won't be any just seconds later.

More rarely, I can take the shot at a lower shutter speed, fixing the problem. Rarely an option for me because my subjects tend to move fast.

--
www.luxpraguensis.com

 

[Sundre]

Thanks, guys.

I think I know the answer to this, but can you help me get clear on it?

I'm assuming that even the a9III's global shutter won't solve the problem of large panel digital displays, because they scan/refresh at 50/60Hz and the only way to capture the entire screen without ghastly moiré is to use a shutter speed of 1/60s or longer. Does this sound right?

The A9III will solve this problem and is the only camera on the market that will. That's a benefit of global shutter, but at a massive price!

You really think so? Wouldn't it still require a slow shutter to capture the panel's full scan, as a mechanical shutter does? Is this in any way different from the challenge, back in the Paleolithic Era, of capturing CRT displays?

--> global shutter --> you'll capture ALL the available light at that exact moment. The process of reading out the sensor line by line (or of the curtain going from top to buttom or the other way around... I don't knot ;-) ) is the reason for the banding. So having all the light enter at the exact same moment will solve the banding issue. Yes.

You either get ALL the light or NONE ;-) Where you have seen banding with other sensors you will see a variety of different lighted situations (including LEDs being "off").

To compare it to non global shutter cameras: It's as if you'd take a picture of just one single LED-light.

Correct. And the A9iii has some clever software determining when there is no light, so that it only keeps frames where there is light.

This is entirely automatic so you never notice it. You simply never get any banding or any entirely dark images, you get exactly the images you want.

Now we just need a camera with this tech for half the cost of the A9iii...

 

[Mr_Win]

the A9 1 and 2 have crip.pled flash, sorry, but it is what it is.

 

[Puppy2007]

With an A7Rv you could solve this problem to a degree by switching to variable shutter in mechanical mode and micro adjusting the shutter speed until flickering disappears on rear screen/EVF.

This works for single source lights only (typically a light in gallery or museum or so), but not for a live concert with dozens of different LED lights using different PWM dimming frequencies and patterns. Either you're lucky the lights vendor use some higher frequency or not, then the A9 III is the only safe camera. Unfortunately, besides the high price, the 24 MP resolution is another downside for concert pictures as you can't crop that much.

A1 seems to be the perfect compromise, but the price is so high given its age and lack of the dedicated AF processor.

I am aware of only one venue with absolutely terrible LED lights where even photographers with full mechanical shutter (I use A7C with EFCS only) have had issues. Wondering how the A9 III would have performed there

 

[AlephNull]

Now that the prices of used a9IIs have dropped below $2000, I'm pondering whether I wouldn't be better off with a pair of them plus an a7CR (for Crop Mode with primes in event work and high-rez in scenic work), instead of my current a7IV, a7RV and a7C. The main draw is ability to shoot with electronic shutter all the time. For any a9II shooters out there, a couple of questions:

1) Can the a9II shoot flash with electronic shutter? I think the a1 does, with some limitations.

The A1 has a flash sync of 1/200 with e-shutter, and 1/400 with mechanical. I use the e-shutter all the time. Completely reliable.

The A9 II, on the other hand, isn't as fast. I am unsure if it can shoot flash in e-shutter. I've heard suggestions it works at 1/160, but I never tried it when I owned one.

The A9 III syncs happily at 1/500 on any flash I've tried, and goes (much!) faster with a Sony flash or after messing around with the flash timing setting. (I know that wasn't what you asked, but I'm enjoying using it!)

2) Does the stacked sensor really eliminate banding under flickering artificial light? It's a challenge that comes up for me every once in a blue moon and has me using mechanical shutter all the time because I can't risk it.

There are settings you can adjust to avoid banding, but I didn't get them to work perfectly (It can take a bit of patience). You need global shutter to eliminate the problem, but the A9 II and A1 do that the ability to fine tune the shutter.

I'm happy with my current AF performance, and I certainly don't need more than 10fps, so those "benefits" of the a9II aren't relevant to me. But, I'd love to be able to work entirely with electronic shutter.

Thanks!

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Thanks, guys.

I think I know the answer to this, but can you help me get clear on it?

I'm assuming that even the a9III's global shutter won't solve the problem of large panel digital displays, because they scan/refresh at 50/60Hz and the only way to capture the entire screen without ghastly moiré is to use a shutter speed of 1/60s or longer. Does this sound right?

The A9III will solve this problem and is the only camera on the market that will. That's a benefit of global shutter, but at a massive price!

You really think so? Wouldn't it still require a slow shutter to capture the panel's full scan, as a mechanical shutter does? Is this in any way different from the challenge, back in the Paleolithic Era, of capturing CRT displays?

> global shutter --> you'll capture ALL the available light at that exact moment.

I understand sensors and global shutter.

The process of reading out the sensor line by line (or of the curtain going from top to buttom or the other way around... I don't knot ) is the reason for the banding. So having all the light enter at the exact same moment will solve the banding issue. Yes.

You either get ALL the light or NONE Where you have seen banding with other sensors you will see a variety of different lighted situations (including LEDs being "off").

To compare it to non global shutter cameras: It's as if you'd take a picture of just one single LED-light.

But, if the thing you're photographing (e.g. a large panel digital display) scans/refreshes at, say, 60Hz and you photograph it at 1/125s, you'll catch it mid-scan.

As I understand it, this is why you can get moiré when photographing a digital projection at shutter speeds 1/125s and faster, even with full mechanical shutter.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Thanks, guys.

I think I know the answer to this, but can you help me get clear on it?

I'm assuming that even the a9III's global shutter won't solve the problem of large panel digital displays, because they scan/refresh at 50/60Hz and the only way to capture the entire screen without ghastly moiré is to use a shutter speed of 1/60s or longer. Does this sound right?

The A9III will solve this problem and is the only camera on the market that will. That's a benefit of global shutter, but at a massive price!

You really think so? Wouldn't it still require a slow shutter to capture the panel's full scan, as a mechanical shutter does? Is this in any way different from the challenge, back in the Paleolithic Era, of capturing CRT displays?

No, the A9III with global shutter solves all these issues.... at any shutter speed, in any lighting. For a mere £6000

OK, maybe with a digital display. I'd bet money, though, it wouldn't help with a CRT and you'd get banding at any shutter speed over 1/60s, because a given line starts to dim immediately after it's scanned, so the shutter has to remain open during the entire scan cycle. I guess digital displays, even if they scan, don't suffer this line-by-line drop in luminance.

Would an a9II or a1 help here? Any real-world experience to confirm this?

With an A7Rv you could solve this problem to a degree by switching to variable shutter in mechanical mode and micro adjusting the shutter speed until flickering disappears on rear screen/EVF.

I often see far more moiré on displays/projections in the EVF than I do in the captured image. I don't think the issue is flickering, but scan rate. Do you know what I mean? Have you seen rainbow moiré on images projected onto a screen over/behind a stage by a digital projector? I get the same thing, sometimes, with large digital display panels, as well.

You can do exactly the same with A1, but in silent mode.

Or, as said, buy an A9III and forget it!

I recently shot a conference where the entire backdrop behind the stage was a huge grid of these panels, and it was a real bugger. Prevented me from shooting at a distance because the required slow shutter (WITH full mechanical shutter) ruled out long focal lengths with moving subjects onstage, so I had to shoot from the middle of the audience instead of the back of the room, and some grumpy old mushroom chewed me out for obstructing the view. Argh!