Sony's a9 III is the first full-frame mirrorless camera with global shutter, which means rolling shutter and having to think about flash sync speeds should be a thing of the past. But that's only part of the story, Sony is positioning the camera as a game-changer for the industry, but is it?
Recent Videos
DPReview's Richard Butler and Dale Baskin spent a long day with a pre-production a9 III and a closer look has yielded some interesting takeaways. Check out the video for five key features that make the a9 III notable and worth paying attention to.
As global shutters become standard the next "game changer" will be a budget friendly flash that can fire full power in 1/80 000th of a second to work with the global shutter.
Hugh Brownstone, the guy from Three Blind Men and an Elephant, raised an interesting point: he can't recall when there was this big of a gap between Sony announcing a camera and it actually shipping (from 1 to 2 quarters). Why? (Keep in mind that Hugh generally praised the camera and is generally very kind to Sony products.)
Some possible reasons:
1) Maybe to be first before a competitor product? Or to get in front of a competitor product that is coming that has other stand out features?
2) To allow time to accrue as many preorders as possible before production units ship?
3) Given the cost of the global sensor, maybe to gauge volume of business before committing to manufacturing a certain quantity?
I see Mr. Anti-Sony brand ambassador is on a crusade to search for YouTubers and quote them to highlight the drawbacks of Sony but never quote the same people when they say the positives of Sony.
I mentioned that Hugh generally praised the camera. I just brought this up more as a question of interest And it doesn't have to be a "drawback." That's your word, not mine.
It's just that anytime a company does something different from their usual operating procedure, it's natural to ask why. No matter what the answer it's fascinating.
We all know why you wrote that and you aren’t fooling anyone. Even non-Sony users have noticed your faint praises, repeating the same points and posting in bad-faith. I haven’t noticed these fascinating questions when non-Sony cameras deviates from their normal operating procedures.
Think what you will; I can't change your mind. But that still leaves these questions. As noted, I wasn't the only one who noticed.
As for other brands, well, when they do anything, whether different or not, usually some vocal Sony promoters ask questions, and usually in a far more critical way. But usually most companies, including Sony, operate pretty consistently with their patterns.
But once again that still leaves us with the question of why this timing? As Hugh said at the end, "hmmmm...."
TRU, put the keyboard down. You need a new hobby. I’m not Sony and i think i largely align with the things you like/dislike. But you gotta get better hobbies than sitting on these forums and endlessly pontificating/over analyzing etc.
TRU poses a reasonable and intriguing question. From a marketing perspective an early ‘launch’ can positively build momentum (car manufacturers do it very well) but to keep the momentum going you need further waypoints of interest capped a by a rip roaring launch with no overlong gaps - looking forward to it….😊 TRU is entitled to pass his time as he sees fit imho - I mean it’s not a days work (hardly a minutes) to find disinformation and nonsense from the disciples of a certain brand 👍
Another day another post above the line bashing the most interesting camera release for years with the most disingenuous criticism imaginable.
This time the pretext is a video by Three Men and an elephant that you somehow found the time to sit through even though it's 30 minutes of him just talking.
His point isn't remotely 'interesting' because the reason for the early announcement is given in the presentation that he sat through - it's announced now because it's the tenth anniversary of the A7 - the camera that started the FF mirrorless revolution.
You also sat through the online presentation, so also know the answer to the question you pretend to ask. Even if you missed that point in the presentation because you went to put the kettle on, you still know because I told on the 7th in a reply to you asking it;
Well, it turns out that the 10th anniversary of alpha 7 launch was in October, not November when the A9 III was launched. Now one might say, well, it's only a month, let Sony slide on it...except that Sony themselves made a big deal and put out a big press release on their real 10th anniversary in October. It's on their website. The press release even shows a nice presentation of Alpha milestones, but of course doesn't show the A9 III. So Sony couldn't have bumped up the announcement a few weeks to coincide with their real anniversary and press release, and added that nice new A9III to the milestone list?
So I don't know if that theory flies. Even the YouTubers don't seem to buy it or in most cases know about it or mention it. And keep in mind these people do talk to Sony, do know the official Sony party line.
I still think we are left with the question of timing...
I agree; it's only a camera and not that serious. So I don't understand why some get personal about it.
As for marketing, Sony is great at it but usually a company does it when they do have competition.
But re the timing again: Sony is a big corp and releases based on sophisticated corp objectives, not sentimentality. And if they really wanted to put this camera out for their 10 alpha FF anniversary, they would have done it 3 weeks earlier to make the timing just right. They can do that; they are a big corp.
My guess is that they had planned to release it in January, like the A1 when it dropped. But for some reason they moved the announcement up and it wasn't for their 10th anniversary, which they had already celebrated.
When the faithful don’t like the message they attack the messenger - pretty much standard practice where confidence is fragile. The camera is clearly not quite ready to rock and roll but Sony felt the need to get it out there - it could be positive (it IS a big breakthrough worthy of fanfare) so why worry…..❓
@kandid - oh the irony 🤦 …im not sure you’re even aware of linguistic circus on display here, with TRU as the main act and you his faithful sidekick 🤡 🤡 it’s pretty clear where the state of worry and fragility lies… I’m just not sure why you both put so much energy into a camera that you obviously don’t like, and clearly want to fail… I’m going to write it off as a severe case of SDS (Sony Derangement Syndrome)
TRU: people attack you and Kandid because a lot of the times you're both preposterous. and i say this as someone who loves Nikon/ Canon and generally dislikes Sony stuff (but can objectively see how good some of their stuff is).
a9iii IS a game changer! and Sony is leading the charge, whether you and Stimpy can't see it. yes it's only 24MP, but it'll improve. just like things got better from the original a9 mk i camera/ stacked sensors! will i buy the a9iii? no, i don't need it, but not every camera is made for me.
if it weren't for Sony, we'd just be getting endless higher MP churn, one rung at a time, till the death of the camera industry!
“stimpy” - nice ❗️ Calling people names and dismissive arrogance doesn’t make you right you know. GS is a milestone, an achievement - time will tell whether it’s a ‘game changer’. Crikey and you tell others to get a life - sheesh…. Anyhow the exam question is why the big pause between now and actual cameras……..the answer isn’t to abuse the examiner…..der….
GS is a "technological tour de force" as Hugh Brownstone calls it. No one denies that. It is incredibly impressive. Yes it will get better over time.
But most people buy a product based on what it does for them and cost, vs just having impressive tech. And *right now* the GS sensor camera doesn't seem to do much more than a nice stacked sensor camera, except for certain niches. And in some ways the stacked sensor camera will be better.
All myself and some others are saying is "show me the money." Show me the money shots/video clips where GS makes a big difference. Mostly we just now have platitudes.
It doesn't help that Sony has been incredibly locked down on letting independent reviewers do their own photos and videos outside of the Sony controlled environment.
One funny thing: if you go to the page on the A9 III on the Sony site you can go to the part where they tout the video features. But they post no sample video. First time I've seen them do that.
This is overthink, especially Vs response to the hardware which is very positive from those that have actually used the camera.
Major announcements often happen later in the year leading into the biggest sales period, that being November/December.
The camera is not ready, but an announcement of this calibre is the next best thing to keep competitors in check.
This is a new development in tech and Sony being 1st in offering FF/GS is playing it smart. They understand the harm premature releases have in the industry.
We can look at the trend of major announcements that show this obvious trend.
Nikon z9h (global shutter rumours) gee what a coincidence- Nov 2023 Nikon Z9 announcement- Oct/Nov 2021 - December 2021 release Canon R3 announcement -Sep 2021 - November 2021 release Sony A1 - strong rumours/leaks Sep 2020 - release Jan 2021 Canon EOS R - announcement/release - November 2019 Nikon Z7/6 - announcement/release late Sep 2018 Sony A7 series are consistently announced Oct/Nov
"response to the hardware which is very positive from those that have actually used the camera." All people hand picked by Sony to test the camera in very favorable situations controlled by Sony.
"Major announcements often happen later in the year leading into the biggest sales period, that being November/December." Doesn't count if you don't have product available in Nov/Dec and won't ship until "spring 2024."
Regardless of what other companies have done, Sony has not announced a camera and then given it 1 to 2 quarters until actual ship date.
"The camera is not ready, but an announcement of this calibre is the next best thing to keep competitors in check." Thank you. That is one possible explanation, which I noted. Perhaps they know the Canon R1 is coming and want this announced first.
I can see it now. Sony promoters will sharply criticize any camera announced without GS by competitors...until Sony announces A1 Mark II with stacked but not GS.
“ All people hand picked by Sony to test the camera in very favourable situations controlled by Sony”
Like any demo event, just replace the word Sony with Canon, Nikon etc….
A hands on hardware demonstration certainly counts. The camera is real and has been placed in the hands of the media. Sony also hasn’t released a GS camera before. So I guess things change. The announcement and hardware demo is enough to make the industry stop and take notice. As you constant ranting about this camera demonstrates. They clearly have your attention…
Perhaps Canon will. What’s your point?.Even if Sony is aware of the the R1, this still puts ball in Canon’s court to reply. Maybe they will have a GS in the R1, perhaps not. We have seen the Sony A9iii and what it’s likely final specs will be. The R1 is all but a mystery at this stage
All you have done litter this thread with backhanded “objective” opinion regarding an untested GS. Your agenda is clear, opinion means little vs the fact GS is here
An A93 using Polar Bear walks into a bar “2 pints of larger……………………………..and a packet of crisps please” “Certainly” says the barman “but why the big pause” 😁😁😁
“I can see it now. Sony promoters will sharply criticize any camera announced without GS by competitors...until Sony announces A1 Mark II with stacked but not GS.”
Ironic how you are hypocritical in your own posts lol
kodacolor and other Sony guys: why so serious? I am just noting what other reviewers have said, and that it is unusual for Sony to announce a product and then wait so long to ship. Then the natural follow up question is simply why? It's all a bit of fun.
I've seen Sony guys do the same with Canon and Nikon and so why not with Sony?
I don't mind that Sony announced the camera, it makes things far more interesting. I do realize that their marketing department is first rate and does what any marketing dept would do and that is paint the brand in the most favorable light. Nothing wrong with that.
But come on guys, it's not like Sony should be immune to some speculation or dare I say, even less than the most flattering praise.
An anteater without an A93 walks into the bar - “2 pints of larger and a packet of crisps please”. “Certainly” says the barman “but why the long face”…..? 😁😁😁
Reflecting on just how many in the Forums not only own multiple camera systems but multiple cameras within the same system, why only those mostly commenting in the negative about this new release. I say it has more to do with Ego then anything else.
The biggest provider of Sensors to biggest consumer camera Brands other then Canon is introducing technology, which just like everything else before it, will eventually trickle down to the lower tier. Yet every Year some behave as if this is some horrible thing. Well it's not.
All new tech is welcome, but some will prove more useful than others. There is nothing wrong with investigating the utility of any new tech.
The key for most will be if/when/how fast this "trickles" down into smartphone sensors, since that is what most people use for most photographs and video these days. If it really makes a big difference the smartphone companies will make sure it ends up in their gear; they have the resources and the large market to merit it.
Re the large sensor cameras: this may "trickle down" but it will take several years. And the trade off in DR has to be solved to get to higher resolution sensors. Notice how Sony has been very tight lipped about the DR in this camera and has limited the testing so far.
There's a reason why this happens with Nikon. They use Sony to make the sensors for them. When they become available, Sony contracts with Sony to make them a custom sensor using Sony tech but with some further customization by Nikon. Sony Semi operates separately from Sony consumer electronics division. It's very smart business from both Sony Semi and Nikon.
That's why sometimes you see Nikon get more out of a Sony sensor than Sony camera division does. With Nikon you can get the goodness of Sony sensors but with the camera design expertise of Nikon. You just have to wait a bit longer for it.
BTW I just noticed a typo: in the above it should read "Nikon contracts with Sony to make them a custom sensor using Sony tech but with some further customization by Nikon."
"That's why sometimes you see Nikon get more out of a Sony sensor than Sony camera division does" BS and where is the evidence of this?
That whole statement is an infactual typo. Nikon doesnt get anything more from Sony's sensors, they just prioratise base iso64 at the expense of DR and noise performance thoughtout the mid range. There is no measurement that backs up your utterly false claim..
Nikon also doesn't "use Sony to make the sensors for them".
The Z6/Z6II, Z7/Z7II and Z5 all use the same off-the-peg sensor as those in the A7III, A7rIII, A7II and the Panasonic S1/S1r/S5. The Z8/9 sensor is also a Sony design, that once again has slightly less DR than the Sony implementation in the A1.
RubberDials: LOL. Nikon buying sensors from Sony is the exact same thing as "using Sony to make the sensors for them". I don't think the people at Sony Semi would have any problem with that wording.
Many times Sony will modify their sensors or create a custom sensor working with the customer. So those Sony sensors often do have some Nikon design input.
But regardless, it is still using Sony to make the sensors for them.
Rubber Dials: LOL again. If you think buying an image sensor from Sony is the same as buying blue jeans from a shop then perhaps you are the one needing a bit of education.
I can guarantee you that any camera company buying an image sensor from Sony has their engineers meet with Sony engineers to discuss certain areas of customization. It's not quite as simple as buying a pair of jeans. That will keep me laughing for a while :)
But the sad thing is that you are so determined to praise Sony at all costs that you cannot admit that even when Sony makes the sensors, that any company might have some input into it. For you it has to be that Sony is everything and other companies are nothing.
Yes but this doesn’t mean that they build them a sensor that performs better like your BS claim. It’s like buying a pair of jeans and getting them custom dyed. Same jeans different colour.
Nikon did not 'get Sony to make it for them'. Saying this is not 'praising Sony' as you assert or saying 'other companies are nothing', it's just stating a fact.
Rubber Dials: LOL again!!! Do you think buying a camera sensor is like buying a lego brick?
I almost can't believe you are making any big deal about this...but yes, Nikon gets Sony to make sensors for them. That is a fact. No one would have problem with that wording except you.
If I contact Sony Semi and contract to buy sensors from them, they are making sensors for me. This is a B to B play, not some retail game.
And yes, when you buy a sensor from Sony, Sony will vary known designs to client specifications. For instance, you can specify and customize the color filter and microlens toppings, you can make modifications to timing and gains, etc.
"Nikon gets Sony to make sensors for them. That is a fact."
Yeah, that's why the IMX410 appeared in the A7III before it appeared in the Z6.
That's why the IMX157 appeared in the A7II six years before it appeared in the Z5.
That's why IMX128 was in the RX1 as well as the D750 and IMX094 was in the A7r as well as the D810 and so on...
The only Sony sensor I can think of that has been used by Nikon and not Sony is the IMX309 in the D850/Z7. There's no evidence that Sony can't use it, they just jumped to 61MP and the IMX451. If they'd kept the A7r series around 45MP I think they would have moved to it from the IMX251.
Of course sensors have custom optical stacks and different arrays of masked pixels etc., but that's not the same as the company 'designing the sensor'. Sony signals these differentiations with letters after the model number. The IMX410 in the A7III is IMX410AQL for example and the IMX410 in the Panasonic S1 (which has no masked pixels) is the IMX410CQK.
If I am making a product to bring to the consumer market, and I contract from any company to purchase any component, it is perfectly acceptable to say that the I use the company to make that component for me.
Dell uses Intel processors. It is perfectly acceptable to say that Dell uses Intel to make the processors for them.
Also you create a straw man argument. If you read what I originally wrote "They use Sony to make the sensors for them. When they become available, Nikon contracts with Sony to make them a custom sensor using Sony tech but with some further customization by Nikon." I never claimed that Nikon designed the sensor from scratch. But for instance, with the Z8/Z9, we do see a sensor manufactured by Sony with Sony tech but also Nikon design input.
You are way too sensitive in protecting Sony. They don't need your help.
The question is not - is it bad technology. The question is not - is it expensive technology.
The question is - who really need it?
Global Shutter is not even on level of technology when first autofocus lenses appeared. Those were radical difference makers back in the day.
Flash for cameras is one of the most radical changes that ever happened for photography, it allowed to start taking photos that were not dark, didn't have big motion blur because long exposure, allowed to take photos against light sources etc. But global shutter is no where near the revolution as it was when first battery powered flashes came available for photographers. Global shutter is not changing almost anything in photography that is done today. It is a solution to a problem that is very niche problem, if even that.
Even when actual major technological advancements happens, like mirrorless revolution, people ignore it for decade as their favorite brand didn't do it!
The comments on here are nothing if not predictable. Every technological innovation gets the same comments about why it is worse/not better/not necessary compared with what went before. Before this site even began, it was the same on predecessor photographic sites: digital was worse/not better/not necessary compared with film.
By the time we got to the Canon D30 in 2000, whilst it had specifications which meant people scratched their heads about how it could possibly be any good (3 megapixels) the actual results were totally usable and almost nobody has looked back since.
It's a difficult call. The law of deminishing returns suggests that an incredible effort must be made in the upper echelon just to improve things a bit.
Particularly in case of 'video' I do wonder if I want this type of camera if 4k120p (no crop) can be had for less than 2k EUR / USD. If I really cared for 'like for like' I would get a RED Komodo X (including the best recording options in the industry at the moment).
Photo mode? Neither have an issue with Nikon FX nor with m43. Banding under certain circumstances? Possible in electronic shutter mode (m43), which I hardly use.
The strongest argument for Sony is still the brillant lens eco system. This fact alone will keep the Sony band wagon going.
You generally can find an analogy for any point of view.
Yes, most usable and popular tech was criticized by some. But also there has been impressive tech that was overhyped that never caught on, or only caught on in a specific narrow niche. And with most tech you do hit a point of diminishing returns.
The only way to know for sure is to let it play out in the market of choice.
Many of the comments on here, and similar forums have an element ( stronger or weaker) often somewhat spurious of negativity towards "gear." However there is also, and this has been manifest with a lot of comments, headlines etc. on photo news sites and Youtube along the lines of "this changes photography for ever." Understandable hyperbole, that's media, but people are entitled and imho right to question such 'hype' as it implies photography wasn't really as good as it might be before this piece of kit arrived and that the equipment they already have is somehow not adequate anymore. It depends upon one's perception of photography as well, is "technical perfection" ( however defined) the be all and end all? As Ansel Adams said "there's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." GAS abounds in many fields and obviously manufacturers do their best to encourage it, along with journalists which gives them kit to comment on.
One thing I believe with photographic equipment is that improvement is always still worthwhile improvement. There is really no limit to how much better equipment could be and still be valuable. This is different from, for example, the "improvement" which was intended from Super Audio CD when that was released over 20 years ago. There was no need for better quality than CD, because your ears can't hear the difference. We have moved back to compressed MP3s, vinyl and mono. In photography there is a similar "adequacy" argument for iphones etc but for those of us who push the equipment a bit more resolution/quality/dynamic range would always be appreciated!
Well, to be fair, this isn’t the first global shutter sensor around and Canon also has global sensor technology, they just didn’t implement it in a photography camera
The thing is, the way Sony announced and marketed it, made it look like it was something out of this world, which, it isn’t… However, I really must say that Sony made a bold move with this announcement and pushed the industry forward. I think Canon is way to careful when it comes to implement new technology and make it more available. I’m pretty excited with this and, of course, now Nikon will also have one and that will pressure Canon to put one out as well, which I’m pretty sure they are already planning, maybe with an R3 ii! We’ll see! All best!
Suppose you choose to shoot a "long" flash exposure - say 1/200 :-D - on the A9 III - why can't you simply have the camera fire the flash near the end of the exposure? Seems like "second curtain shutter" is perfectly possible.
Bear in mind that just because you can sync at 1/80000, doesn't mean you have to.
What you describe is not “2nd curtain sync” which is what could be done with a long eg a second or more ambient light exposure of a dancer, gymnast, athlete etc, which will record as a flowing trail of motion then ‘freeze’ the subject at the end with a flash, triggered by the shutter closing at the end of the exposure.
Global shutter works like this: Start an exposure - 1st "curtain", that opens across the hole sensor at ones, or "disappears" End an exposure - 2nd "curtain", that closes across the hole sensor at ones, or "appears.
It is the same as rolling shutter sensors, except shutter just "appears" and "disappears".
The important aspect of second curtain sync is that the strobe burst completes just before the end of exposure, not that there are physical shutter curtains. I see no reason why the trailing motion blur effect can't be achieved with a global shutter.
Suppose most of this has been commented on. Yes a technological breakthrough. The majority of users will not benefit from this, but some will pay the high price as they think it will improve their photography.
Lots of cameras today provide excellent results and are fun to use. The problem seems people just want to press the shutter and let the camera do the job. A good system with this new Sony will cost over $9000 to get started with. Its about time the camera sites try and align with the major user base. In addition the coverage of the Sony is everywhere and almost the same, so of no real use sorry top say. Now is the time to look at older cameras that are now available at lower prices as some users already ditch the latest gear. Already seeing R5, and Sony 7RV secondhand. I am happy with my Nikon Z and Fuji series cameras. Not into video where a lot of the latest gear concentrates on.
Most of the users won't benefit from the tech in the A9III this year or next, but this is just the first FF GS sensor. If you think it will be the last, you are simply wrong. This is just the debut of this tech, just as the first A9 was the debut of the stacked sensor.
This will be useful to a limited number of people (who can afford it), but it will spread.
Do you think that a camera site like DPReview isn't read by photojourmalists? Maybe there are a lot of hobbyists on here, but does that mean that professional photographers aren't allowed to read the coverage, too?
Besides, there are hobbyists who can afford serious gear, like this A9 III. They can even be the source of those second hand A7RV cameras that you mention...
As expected. Yes innovation moves forward. Yes pros use this site, but the majority of users do not need the A9III, and most cannot afford it either. Yes those with lots of cash and it seems a lot do have such spare cash will buy. In Switzerland where I live, users buy new gear get bored with it fairly quickly and move to the next supposedly best option. I know people who bought Panasonic S1 and S1R then two weeks later went and bought Leica SL2`s, due wait for it the weight!!!! Anyway I have been involved in Photography for 50years+ and bought high end imaging products to the market but feel that the life expectancy of some products is short these days and wait for a few months at least before buying the latest gear. Sony have also done its usual and limited many aspects of the A9II to force users to use Sony Gear. I do use Sony A7`s, but prefer Nikon, Fuji and Panasonic if I am honest. Most improved features are heavily directed at Video.
"If you think it will be the last, you are simply wrong. This is just the debut of this tech, just as the first A9 was the debut of the stacked sensor."
Anywhere he didn't say that this would be the last.... Just that most people do not benefit from the global shutter, no matter who would be doing it or even for any price.
If you think that global shutter or 120 FPS will improve most people photography.... That is the point, why it is better just get the cheaper older equipment because you do not get worse opportunities or possibilities with those than with this one.
Well, apart from being a technological breakthrough, I understand that this camera only offers improvements for people who do a lot of sports and flash photography and make pictures of LED panels or similar. Ok, one look at the projected price tag convinced me that its not for me, anyway. :-) But certainly a very nice camera, for sure.
It's not exactly a technological breakthrough. They have been available for some time for certain industrial purposes where a global shutter is essential, see https://youtu.be/LevsuBIkn9s . If there is a breakthrough, it's making a global shutter sensor more commercially feasible for professional photography. What would be a technological breakthrough would be to make an economical global shutter sensor with IQ equal to that of current rolling shutter sensors. It'll probably come.
No, this is not limited to the situations you listed.
This will be able to shoot almost everything you can shoot with a focal plane shutter, plus things that the focal plane shutter cannot.
The question marks lie over the dynamic range of the sensor, and the starting point of ISO 250. But bear in mind that last decade there were other sensors which started at ISO 200 (and this sensor is 14 bit, not 12 bit). I'm going to be very interested in hearing what people think of the RAW files once we get the ability to process them.
Yes, it's expensive, but remember that the A1 debuted at a higher number than this camera (and that was in 2021 dollars, not 2023 - we've had some inflation since).
All up, I will be watching developments with this new camera with great interest.
Right now other Sony cameras have base ISO of 100. So this give up almost two stops to other Sony cameras. The video has a base ISO in SLOG3, which is what pro's would use, of 2000. That may be more limiting than the base ISO of stills.
I can understand why this camera is priced this high; GS doesn't come cheap, esp the first FF one. But the key will once people get their hands on production models and can do full testing.
The A9III does give up two stops of DR to the Nikon Z8/Z9, which has base ISO of 64.
Then there's the base ISO of 2000 in SLOG3. That is compared to a base ISO of 640 for A7SIII and 800 for most other Sony cameras. I notice Sony hasn't released video samples from the camera yet, at least not that I am aware of. On their web page for the camera where they tout video features they haven't posted any samples. With the A1 and A7SIII of course they had that video sample ready to go from day 1.
That doesn't in any way make the A9 III a bad camera; quite the contrary, I am sure it's an excellent one. But it does seem that this camera's advantages accrue to a more narrow market.
And given the DR loss, I would expect that it may be a little while until Sony has a high resolution version of this sensor ready.
The base iso 64 on the Z8/9 does not give anything extra over a Sony sensor at base iso 100. If fact vs the equivelent sensor in the A1 Nikons iso 64 shows slightly less DR vs the Sony at iso 100... at least check your hyperbole before posting it...
No matter what we debate about the Z9 vs A1, let's face the truth: the A9III has less DR, as a trade off for the GS.
Sony has been very quiet about the DR of the A9III and its high ISO noise handling. They really haven't allowed any third party independent tests. The tests they allowed at the launch event were all using a lot of lighting with no RAW files.
That this trade off exists shouldn't be shocking. And Sony has done an excellent job of delivering a GS to the market that produces great results. But the only somewhat shocking thing is that Sony claimed at the launch event there are no tradeoffs, when clearly there are. They can say that it doesn't make much difference, but you shouldn't say that there are no trade offs.
And it still is funny to brag about the video features but show no sample video on the website.
Of course there are trade offs, nobody is denying that. Im denying your 2 stops even as a measure of hard stops, your claim is just utterly false. In fact we can see that once over base iso the Nikon Z9 starts to fall behind consistently throughout the iso range.
We can check DR results on global shutter sensors that already on the market. The 2021 Komodo RED S35 GS sensor as measured ,shows DR is comparable to that of the FF Sony A7Siii. So I’ll wait to see the real results of the A9iii, which I think may actually surprise…
We know the A9 III has a base ISO of 250 in stills and 2000 for video in SLOG3. That alone suggests some trade offs in DR. What else to make of that? Just about every other Sony camera has base ISO of 100 and most have base ISO of 800 in SLOG3. So this is comparing to Sony and avoiding any debate about Nikon or others.
I do agree that Sony almost for sure has done an excellent job and the results will be quite good.
What is surprising is that Sony denies any trade off whatsoever, or as they say with "no compromises." They did it at the presentation and one of their reps did it when asked at a forum with B&H. You admit there are trade offs but Sony does not. I guess they figure that's easier than trying to explain nuance and the idea that a trade off may not matter much in real world scenarios. But that would be going against the usual idea of marketing specs.
The only trade off I’m suggesting is iso250 in stills. 2000 in slog3 ( not always the best for video depending on you’re lighting situation) regardless this translates to about 1 stop not almost 2 that you are suggesting.
Given that 2 yo s35 GS sensors are comparable with cameras such as the A7Siii in DR - Sonys claims that there is little to no compromise might ring very true for this new and untested FF GS.
For its given applications being high speed action, base 100/64 iso is hardly a concern, where you are pushing the iso, maintaining DR at higher iso is far more important. We see this in single digit dslrs of yesteryear.
GS is the logical progression for CMOS, I’d say this is why Sony has entered this camera into the market, especially given it’s the replacement for its most adopted sports oriented press cameras. I expect Nikon will soon be following with its own GS camera.
Sony did not claim " there is little to no compromise." They claimed "no compromise." That is a big difference in wording.
"Given that 2 yo s35 GS sensors"...you cited one example, the RED Komodo. It's not like there's this large number of GS sensors on the market. Indeed isn't that one reason why this announcement is a big deal?
As for high ISO, this camera also has a lower high ISO in its ISO sensitivity range. With those single digit DSLRs, we saw the opposite: a larger high ISO in that range, usually among the highest at its time.
This is not a dual gain sensor either, which would help with higher ISO performance.
I do expect this camera to still perform extremely well in DR and higher ISO's.
I like the idea of GS being the next logical step for CMOS, but time and money will decide that. And for FF cameras, I don't expect GS to take over any time in the next several years. If it happens on a large scale it will happen with smartphones first.
Your responses are a complete deflection of your utterly false claim regarding 2 stops of DR….yet you’re pointing out particulars in language. 🤦
Global shutters like much high end tech is a niche, until it improves and performs to the point that it’s not. This camera is taking GS to the mainstream of professionals and enthusiasts. Hence why it’s such a big deal and many are talking about it. The price is actually very on point and the fact is, if you are upgrading your a9ii you are getting a GS.
It’s no secret global shutters that perform without the caveats or constraints have been desired by many in the industry for sometime. It’s not necessarily a question of can you live without it. Most can get by without 45mp, 15 stops of DR, iso 256,000 and 20fps and the industry was fine. Yet many here are complaining of DR performance in a GS that will beat out many professional cameras in both DR and high iso performance from not so long ago…
That "particular in language" matters a lot. "Particulars in language" often matter a lot.
Sony claims no compromises. That would seem not to be true. Even you admit that. So yes it is a big deal when a large company like Sony makes that claim. Sorry but that is a bigger deal than arguing about 1.3 stops or 1. 5 stops or 2 stops in a comment on this forum.
When this camera is released and independent third parties conduct their tests I want to see if the claim Sony made was true. Because their very own data on ISO sensitivity range would seem to contradict them.
The particular language reads that there is no compromise is DR or ISO noise Vs What? is the question. In market speak this particular language rings true if it’s within spec. That being if there is no compromise in DR at iso 250 and no noise penalty throughout its available iso range
It’s not a big deal because you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t know what the comparison is comparing itself to, which only leaves the actual specification itself as the reference point. Which means at the given spec listed it is not compromised. For someone who claims such authority I cannot understand how you are lost on this point. It’s marketing speak 101… and technically truthful and correct to anyone that understands what they are reading.
If they said it is not compromised Vs the A1 at iso 100 specifically your point might have some weight. But like most of your comments it just reads as agenda driven drivel to anyone with experience
Yes..that is what I see as one of the situations where a GS can make a meaningful difference...in this sort of science experiment type of photography. To me that is very cool.
I have to say that reading the comments here and in general about the A9III are interesting.
You can try and deny reality as much as you'd like but the truth is that a FF global CMOS sensor is quite a feat. You may not like the camera and certainly the price is out of reach for most, but the achievement itself is important.
Out of interest I went back and read the original A9 review and there were similar weird comments from some users.
I don't know if it's anger, jealousy or a mixture of the two but some were coming out with any excuse for why the A9 wasn't ground breaking (with hindsight we see it was, as stacked sensors are the bedrock for the top of the line cameras across the "big three" systems).
I predict similar; CaNikon will likely release a global shutter camera, and it's only then that certain factions will finally understand that a global shutter is actually amazing, till then I'm sure there'll be lots of copium about why it's not that great, ha.
Yes the global shutter is an impressive technical achievement and over time it may become the standard.
But the stacked sensor with a very fast readout speed already solved most of the problems that global shutter solves. A very fast read speed is so close to a simultaneous read speed that for most practical purposes it does not matter.
A. Reid wrote: "a fast rolling shutter stacked sensor does everything I need it to, whereas a global shutter caters for a small niche of shots. With the a9 III, I could capture lightning and camera flashes without banding, and very fast moving objects like propeller blades without distortion. Impressive though this is, it only accounts for a very small usage case in terms of overall shooting. Also, some cameras now have such a fast rolling shutter (2ms for example) that problematic shots are even less of an issue and even less of a reason to get a global shutter camera."
@Thoughts R Us Yes that is true. For me personally and for many (I'd even say most) a stacked sensor (or even a fast non-stacked sensor like the R6II) is the most we'd probably ever need.
IMO the two big areas that the CMOS global shutter has potential to be really transformative is:
A) During video and having 0 rolling shutter, which is really big, especially for fast panning scenes. B) Not having to deal with flickering from LED lights, so for sports shooters in stadiums with LED displays that'll be massive.
Other advantages (perhaps smaller); firstly, when flashes are able to take advantage of it; being able to sync at even 1/80000 is awesome, albeit there are caveats. Not having to worry about HSS is not life changing per say, but a nice benefit.
To continue on from my prev comment; are those enough reasons for global shutters to go mainstream?
Well...part of the question is whether global shutters can ever become cheap (I think an important component of it going mainstream), as we have to remember that the global shutter is actually a stacked sensor too.
Even with economies of scale I don't know how cheap a stacked sensor can become, let alone a stacked sensor global shutter.
But I do believe that global shutters can at least be what's used for the top cameras going forward. At some point I expect an A1iii (too early for the mark II), Z9II, Canon R1ii to all have high MP global shutters.
Never liked it though…….I can’t talk about the incident where my pregnant mother was attacked by an out of control Sony Super 8 film camera - but I try to not let it influence my comments……🤐🤐
All I said was that you COULD be wrong about a lot of things (which is of course true of anyone - I might have got the rampaging Sony cine camera story wrong……). I never mentioned Sony at all so perhaps best to calm down……😊
I am not surprised you never liked it. As for the Sony Super 8 film camera..I mean...ok....lol.
You "never mentioned Sony at all", but y'know I can see your other comments... and something with this camera release seems to be stirring up all kinds of emotion and waffle from you.
Finally, I'm calm tbh.....but your comments on this article indicate that you don't seem to be.
But don't worry, it'll be ok; when Canon come out with their FF 24MP global shutter camera and charge £/$8000 for it you can cope on that page about what a wonderful camera it is 🤣
Well if they do I won’t buy that either - 24MP from anybody not being enough imho. Thanks for checking my other posts - flattered. I haven’t bothered to check yours…..
@dka91 - there's also the photographers at concerts - increasingly lit with LED lighting, and rapidly changing lighting. The ability to shoot concert shots in complete silence and getting consistent lighting for the whole of each shot is going to matter.
@Kandid Always making it about you.....I've read most, if not all of the comments on this article, so don't flatter yourself 🤣 🤣
In fact I'm only replying to you specifically, because you decided you couldn't help but reply to me initially.
@AlephNull Yes exactly, and whilst it's true that stacked sensors get you most of the way there (for most shooting scenarios); the elimination of banding, never having to worry about rolling shutter and truly never needing the mechanical shutter are IMO great achievements and I think it's just generally exciting (just as I was excited with what Nikon did with the Z9 and Canon with the R6II & R5).
@dka91 I actually bothered to read your OP - it’s a bit defensive isn’t it. The original A9 did have groundbreaking tech - but there were real issues with the camera also which were nicely summarised by dpr in their full review. I have copied their concerns from the review for your delight:
- Base ISO dynamic range lags existing Sony full frame cameras - Battery grip all-but-required for comfortable use with larger lenses - Lock-On subject tracking still less dependable than Nikon 3D Tracking - Only one SD slot is UHS-II - Default color response improved, but still behind competition - Shooting uncompressed Raw drops burst speed to 12fps - No lossless compressed Raw option - Auto white balance can struggle under artificial lighting - Won't sync with flashes in e-shutter; max frame rate with flash is 5 fps - Poor solution for AF assist in dim light - No picture profiles or S-Log in video - Center Lock-On AF in video is archaic, unreliable and cumbersome
You can read the rest yourself… Correspondents pointing out any of the above were not then acting out of “anger or jealousy” but had genuine concerns (according to dpr). Perhaps concerns about this new version of the camera may also have a basis in truth - time will tell when some A93s actually appear…….
The point that seems to have completely gone over your head, is that the A9 had ground breaking technology; yes it had drawbacks but the many cameras do, especially if you nitpick.
A lot of the people commenting on the A9 article were essentially moaning that the tech wasn't that impressive. I see similar sentiments and downplaying of the FF CMOS global shutter on this article's comments, and in comment sections regarding this camera elsewhere.
However, he tech itself is exciting and will probably find its way to other top end cameras so it's just funny seeing people kick up a fuss, yet when Canikon release their versions, some of the same people will be full of praise for them.
@dka91 Well - not my waffle of course - but conclusions by this very website. Perhaps to you waffle is stuff you don’t agree with - or that offends your brand devotion - who knows….. 🤷♂️
Sigh, it seems you're purposely trying to not understand my point.
The original A9 review did point out negatives ofc - every camera has negatives.
I'm not even referring to the review itself, I'm talking about comments on the review (I already said this in my original comment), that were talking down the technological breakthrough of the stacked sensor and only focused on negatives.
I'm seeing that same sentiment (from some people, not all), with this A9III wrt the global shutter; some people trying to downplay the global shutter.
Sure the camera isn't perfect & yes it's expensive.
There are hurdles with global shutter but the achievement of a CMOS global shutter with ISO performance that isn't so far behind rolling shutter (from what we can see so far) is noteworthy, just like the stacked sensor was noteworthy, even if it took people's own brands releasing it before they acknowledged it.
Surprisingly I agree with most if not all of that - undoubtedly gs will be the future and I am keen to see how this first iteration works. It will have teething problems (dr, low light) maybe serious ones (and for me 24MP isn’t enough) but it is ultimately the right answer…👍
Shouldn't it be the holy grail for computational photography as well? Improving DR, resolution and lowering noise with focus stacking even with fast shutter speed?
It could be but there needs to be the processing power, the algorithms, and enough battery life for all of that to work with a sensor like this one.
Right now those are not available in dedicated cameras, only smartphones.
Time will tell if camera companies decide to go that direction but it will take a lot of R&D money and time. Camera companies may not feel it's worth that.
You forgot to mention (in-camera) panorama(-stitching). Or better, actually: HDR-(Art-) panorama.
Casio once did a fine job with their HDR-Art, *and* panorama[*], but sadly never combined. [*] almost foolproof, no matter the swing (including diagonals & curves(!), hardly ever an error, just some stitching artifacts) (since then, I got hooked by Panasonic, on FZ82 (GH-series probably same (G/S-series lack panorama, sadly))....no HDR-Art at all, but huge >>360 degree swings, in ratio's of 1:6 (portrait) & 1:8,5 (landscape))
I'd rather use the speed of this sensor to capture large brackets very quickly.
Instead of whining about merging a handful of shots in-camera, capture a hundred shots in a second and merge them on a computer which can do them justice.
You are creating a false dichotomy here, because *both* spec's/quality-performances can be true. As in: there is NWIH by which *only* this panorama-performance could be boosted, while AEB-sec would/could *not*, first & foremost.
Also, there is no FWIH I will revert to post-processing. Never done that in the analog days, will never do it in the digital days. I have much better things to do than sit behind a computer, again. You also might want to enjoy the stellar panorama performance of a Panasonic FZ82, before you look down on these 'cheap entry' camera's. All it takes is a faster sensor (ISO) & readout/processing to create panoramic perfection. Mind you: that camera is 5 years old. And even the previou FZ72 did the same job (only lacked 4k/30p video).
Otherwise you show me *any* camera that can do >>360 degree shots in-camera. Digital, that is. (you probably don't know any of the analog film camera's that could!)
Mind you: I grew up with analog swing camera's, both 35mm & MF.
Also tell me how I should do such a >>360 swing *hand-held* by a series of AEB's, in the *same* time I can do a fluid-motion swing. IOW: you are forcing me to a tripod at the same time (with click-stop panorama head). NFWIH I will do that, and give up the instant flexibility of walking around, and taking swing-shots in less than a minute.
GD, even the ambient light has changed by the time I finished such a series of AEB's.
Point 6. 24MP is unacceptable in the light of the A1 and the Z9 - particularly at $6000. Pro sports photographers will clamour for the extra pixels from the super fast and excellent pair so where does 24MP fit in❓❓❓DOA❗️So proclaimed the brand disciples when presented with the R3 a year or two ago. If they are to avoid being hypocritical then I guess they all think that this new camera is a dud also - and for the same reasons……👎❓
I do find it amusing that those who proclaimed 24 MP to be far too low to be competitive in high speed flagship cameras all of a sudden have a different take on the subject. Even Sony hailed it as the "sweet spot" of resolution.
It’s, disappointingly hypocritical I’m afraid…….however an upside is that the R3 must in fact be a cracking camera - as 24MP was the only criticism the flock could focus on 👍👍👍🤣😂🤣
And of course it sacrifices almost 2 stops of DR to global shutter, while the R3 does not.
We shall see when the camera is released just how many unique shots it gets vs other cameras with a fast stacked sensor. That's the real test. Does it produce many significant images that other cameras cannot get? If so it will be very obvious. If not then this is a wonderful breakthrough technologically with limited application above what some other cameras offer.
24mp is the sweet spot for reportage/sports, (why do you need more?) what any hobbiest/amatuer thinks has little to do with this being fact for all pragmatic purposes, and why single digit dslrs and their now mirrorless replacements are lower in MP Vs other top tier models..
This camera is clearly for sports and reportage and better than the R3 due to the fact that it has a global shutter and therefore is totally uncompromising for these applications. Professionals at the top of their game will take advantage of 120fps much like they did with 10fps and then 30fps etc… this camera will help get better shots more often and with less compromise, because the other compromises such as low iso DR, noise at pixel level… this mean little to nothing Vs the benefits of speed and opportunity a global shutter offers for its intended market.
"Professionals at the top of their game will take advantage of 120fps much like they did with 10fps and then 30fps etc…"
The problem is that at what point does more fps become almost unnecessary...because that point does exist. Many pro's dial back the fps on their A1's from 30 to 15.
"because the other compromises such as low iso DR, noise at pixel level… this mean little to nothing Vs the benefits of speed and opportunity a global shutter offers for its intended market."
Its not a problem, photography has always been a technology driven medium. The only problem is how you exploit it from a creative perspective.
I don't believe the comparisons or comments you make are anything but unproven assumptions. However it takes but a quick glance at your comments to see that your stance is all over the place, (highly brand dependent) A stance that apeears to be infomed more from reading than doing and not really understanding of the possiibilities that these advnaces bring.
I can sure as hell see how the features a global shutter and only a global shutter bring, that benefit such applications in sports/journalism. what we have here is once specialised technolgies finding themselves in hands of more creatives/professional. This has always been the drive of the medium since dot one. Anyone saying these advancements are useless has a very limited scope and very low memory retention regarding the history of photography. That or they are in denial...
Time will tell how useful GS is, esp vs high speed stacked sensors. Once the camera is released we will have more empirical data.
Technology has to be more than impressive, it has to be useful. Useful technology is impressive, but not all impressive technology is useful on a broad scale.
I remember when the CD came along, co-invented by Sony, and it was an obvious improvement in so many ways and of course it took off like wildfire. I remember when Sony released the Mini Disc audio format/player, as well as the mini DAT. I thought those were the coolest things, and they were! They worked great and I thought they would replace the CD. The market said no. It wasn't until Apple came along with the iPod that we saw the next big thing in music players.
If when the A9 III is released we see an abundance of impactful photos that could not have been taken otherwise, we will know we have something special. But so far we haven't seen that.
CD's, MD's and DAT Are relics of the early days of digital audio and have little to do with the actual price of eggs here...'
When even the fastest stacked sensors still present rolling shutter in video/still, banding and limited flash sync. These errors /deficiencies are eliminated with a stacked sensor with a global shutter such as the A9iii. If you think Canikon is omitting GS because they don't see it necessary in the future, and stacked sensors will cut it, you are in complete and utter denial.
It's not necessarily just about what new ways the technology can impact successful images, it's about completely eliminating images that have errors. The GS shutter is the way to achieve this and is the logical step forward given the advancement of stacked sensors. That they would reach the point of instant readout. That this will become the new normal in the future is not that surprising, in fact it's a rational expectation.
@zxaar I seem to recall you were one of the proponents of the theory that 24 MP was dead and buried in the time of the A1 (and Z9). Now 24MP is the bees knees (🐝🦵) is it - all of a sudden ❓🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Kandid, are you really young? You do realize that different people can say different and mutually-exclusive things, right? You can’t just lump the entire Sony fanbase into one monolithic group.
24mp will work for some people and it won’t work for others. Those that have the optics to reach as far as they need to, will probably be fine with it. Don’t get too caught up in this stuff. You’re in the weeds and you’re not seeing the forest for the trees.
The fastest stacked sensors do not show rolling shutter except in very extreme situations. Sony for instance on their own site advertises the A1 as having "anti-distortion shutter."
In fact the same type of action shots shown for this A9 III...showing for instance the golf club...were shown for the stacked sensor cameras.
Very few if any users of stacked sensors are complaining about rolling shutter.
The banding issue is again a less mainstream issue affecting a tiny percentage of photos. And as noted by one pro, very few even notice it.
All tech has to solve a real world problem to get widespread adoption. This solves some problems but ones confined to smaller segments of the market.
I will always keep an open mind so show me the images where GS makes a huge difference vs a stacked sensor. That's the easy way to end the debate. Right now all we have are platitudes about a new tech.
@TRU this might be true for stills (somewhat). However a quick glance on google, shows that rolling shutter and banding certainly present as an issue for enough still shooters to get a fair amount of mention. Global shutters will close any kind of compromise here.
Stacked sensors alone have a long way to go before eliminating rolling shutter from video. Seeing as the global shutter has now been introduced. It seems rather backwood that the industry will attempt to make faster stacked sensors (even the fastest today don’t cut it for video) to eliminate rolling shutter, where there is a complete and tidy solution ready for production in the form of a global shutter.
someone with an “open mind” wouldn’t have missed half the point of the global shutter and this is its impact on video. Let alone the significant capabilities it will bring to stills…
Seems odd to me that Hollywood, pro wildlife and sports video shooters seem to be managing fine without GS. TRU is correct let’s see if the compromises impact significantly on the benefits of GS. It’ll be a while before this is clear with the A93. @Simonella 1. Not very young sadly - but growing older is much better than the available alternatives 👍 2. I’m not concerned about different people having different views (obviously). My point is about shape shifting brand warriors slating one product for a perceived weakness and hailing another as ‘groundbreaking’ that has the exact same feature. Full frame 24MP is one such feature - ‘hopeless’ in an R3 yet magically ‘perfect for the target market’ in an A93. This is called hypocrisy. I obviously couldn’t care less what such people think however I am happy to point it out as a service to the community 😊😊. Bigger picture - I wouldn’t have an R3 or an A93 as I think 24 MP isn’t enough 👍👍
FotoFunTimes: Like Kandid, I don't see videographers hurting due to lack of GS.
And with video, you generally pan and zoom slowly, to avoid jarring the viewer. The only times I see rolling shutter in video is when YouTubers test a camera and move it in a panning motion with speed that no one would ever do in real life. It's a very artificial test.
Like with stills, GS will make a difference in video in certain limited use cases. But let's not kid ourselves, it not going to remake the industry. BTW, the base ISO of SLOG3 with the A9 III is 2000. So there will be some tradeoffs in DR just like with stills, maybe even more so. Over time I do expect Sony to solve some of these problems with GS with ingenious engineering.
But again, aside from helicopter propellers, show me the videos where GS makes such a difference.
Kandid never said that sht. Might be telling the hypocrite canikon fanboys who demanded that from sony.
May be that hurt you. Who knows.
It hardly changes the fact that there is no 24 mp global shutter ff camera in canon or nikon. It will be years before these two brands catch up. As usual.
To get this focused again on topic and not on personal accusations...we all know that Sony is a technological powerhouse. We all know they develop some amazing tech. They always have.
But most people buy on what tech does for them, not on just being impressive. You have to understand that. The HiFi market essentially shrunk to virtually nothing even though it had incredibly impressive tech.
To say that Sony has this tech and right now Canon and Nikon do not offer this yet, means nothing to most consumers. What most consumers do is judge based on real products, what they do, and what they cost.
Tech has to be more than impressive; it has serve a real purpose. I don't doubt that GS serves a real purpose for some, but right now they seem to be more limited use cases. If it serves a dramatically better purpose, just show me the images or videos.
Mind you if you are saying (zxaar) that you have always thought 24MP is “perfect for the target market” then pro sports shooters are delighted as they have had access to the R3 for some years now 👍👍👍😊😊😊
Zxaar If 24MP is perfect for the target market then they decided that the R3 was perfect some time ago………..(A1 and Z9 maybe then not sports cameras?). A93 may well be even better than the R3 - but we will have to wait and see…..😊
Nikon knows ergonomics and so it's not surprising that as time goes by that Sony learns and adopts a design more akin to Nikon. There are certain rules of ergonomics; it's not entirely subjective.
it's funny cause I think actually Sony had a very interesting start with mirrorless back in 2010 or so....I remember looking at Nex cameras as very enticing concepts. After A7, a72, and a7iii, that sense of innovation and pioneering was completely lost, almost as if the rising of competitors paralyzed the company and pushed it to play "safe". After that, they just sold televisions with a viewfinder, only adding better specs no one needs every 3 months. The only counterbalance is the advantage they have in the lens compartment, which is not a small one
Speaking strictly of full frame mirrorless, it was nearly five long years that went by before Nikon or Canon brought one to market. To say Sony mirrorless since the A7 intros have been "TV with viewfinder" is laughable.
no, funny is that everything is said against a brand on this site is taken as coming from another brand fan. I don't care about Canon, Nikon, or mirrorless full-frame. Mine was an analysis of Sony: you can disagree on that, but you're disagreeing in the wrong way
Dare I say it, especially as there were no downsides mentioned - potentially the noise levels are a step behind the best of the rest and of course the cost is high.
We don't know yet about the trade offs in DR and noise control. We probably won't know until first production models ship and there is independent testing.
Surely there are some; base ISO is 250 and is 2000 in video with SLOG 3.
My guess is that it will make a difference on the margins and most people won't notice. But that also rings true with the fact that GS eliminates all rolling shutter jello effects vs what a fast stacked sensor does with eliminating almost all rolling shutter effects. That marginal difference also rings true with offering 120 fps vs "only" 30 fps.
So it will be up to users to determine the best use cases of GS and find where it really shines.
Haha. I can also see some many click baity titles incoming from all the you tubers. :D "Why you shouldn't buy the Sony a9 III" "Why the Sony a9 III is not a game changer" "Why you don't need the Sony a9 III" etc....
What's funny is that those YT reviewers have become so predictable, and seem to hype up everything, and so often just repeat the exact verbiage that Sony puts out.
I actually wouldn't expect many negative pieces on this camera. Those YTers want to stay in the good graces of Sony and keep being invited to press events and getting hands on new gear before anyone else.
I was referring to your five year astroturfing career on here.
Since you're spreading fud it's not possible say it's fair. It's fundamentally disingenuous. A good example is your claim to 'refuse to buy into the hype'. Hype is defined as exaggeration and artificially generated attention. There is no hype with this camera. It's a genuine industry breakthrough and people are naturally interested.
1. This looks like audition outtakes for a Sony ad.
2. Although made obsolete by Global Shutter, the Nikon Z9 can still manage 120 FPS, photograph a swinging baseball bat without distortion, and do 300 seconds of pre-release buffering, as opposed to Sony's four (which seemed to awe the guy in the video). The Z9 does 60 FPS 12-bit (Bayer) RAW 8256×4644 video, which translates to ~38 MP images, so one might as well take video and select the best frames.
3. It's hype because there's a flood of declarations of the wonders of global shutter technology, conflated into Sony A9III features and then used to highlight the defects that have been bedeviling photographers, with their primitive, Fred Flintstone cameras. Trade-offs, drawbacks and asterisks of the actual Sony camera are glossed over, at best.
4. There's a curious reluctance to dig into the A9III's deficiencies.
It's not entirely clear what you're saying but if you're saying the A9III is hyped because it shoots at 120fps and the Z9 already does that I'd say you're not considering the compromises on the Nikon model that aren't present on the Sony model, which mean it isn't hype. It could be that you are not saying that.
As for people 'glossing over' 'trade offs' or having a 'curious reluctance to dig into the deficiencies', is it really curious? No production camera exists, no reviews have been published. No-one has Amy idea what trade offs or deficiencies might exist.
"No production camera exists, no reviews have been published. No-one has Amy idea what trade offs or deficiencies might exist."
A few thoughts:
1) Who is Amy? :)
2) Just as planned by Sony. Get everyone talking about the features that Sony wants highlighted, but avoid any talk of the trade offs or downsides. Great job by Sony marketing, which is truly world class, and I say that with true admiration. They do their job very well.
3) We do have one hint of a trade off in DR: the higher base ISO of 250 (2000 for video SLOG3).
1. I guess you've not got much when one of your points is questioning an obvious autocorrect typo.
2. As a marketing person you know very well that Sony's Alpha system marketing is nothing to write home about at all. The presentation was decidedly amateurish and received criticism on here. The truth is the GS sells itself and the audible audience gasps were not caused by Sony tickling people's bottoms with a feather.
3. We don't know if there is a trade-off in DR at ISO 250. The non stacked sensor in the Canon R6II is almost a stop worse than the A9II at ISO 250 in ES mode. The R3 with baked in noise reduction is about the same as the A9II. Even the best DR at 24MP on the market (Sony A7III) is only about two thirds of a stop better. I would say that the DR would have to be approaching R6II levels to be a problem and I don't think that's likely.
Imagine the A1 Mark2 price! I am expecting 7.5-8k. Sony is a smart company. Send those attention-hungry YouTubers to NYC and they will do all the marketing for you. It costs them pennies to do that while the return is huge.
It depends if the A1 Mk II uses GS or a stacked sensor. They may elect to keep the stacked sensor to preserve the higher resolution. The Sony presentation said that right now 24MP is the "sweet spot" for GS. Given some of the trade offs in DR and noise they may not want to go higher MP for now.
But if the A1 Mark II is indeed GS, then yes, it will be at least $8000 IMHO.
I would say that if A1 Mark II is a more incremental update on the current model with stacked sensor then it may be released in 2024. If it is a GS then it will be 2025. Either way Sony may want to put all of its marketing push into the A9 III and the GS for the next year and delay the A1.
And yes, Sony is masterful at using social media like YT to promote. It's always funny because most YT'ers literally use the exact same phrases that Sony uses in their press release and marketing materials. Someone noted that and said it's lazy journalism to just parrot the press release.
MFTs was apparently the first to properly put in RAW pre capture and now Sony has followed. MFTs should have been first to put in a Global sensor for these types of Cameras. Hence the steady decline in overall Camera sales apparently stopped that.
So yes, Proper RAW Pre capture is Game changing for a ton of Pros. As is No distortion for images. The game changing for the rest of us, it will eventually trickle down to all cameras at some point.
its definatly a game changer. im looking forward to selecting 20 amazing images from 100,000 🤔40 hours spent at the computer culling instead of 4. im glad the client will be paying me 10 x my fee. Looks like i will finally be rich owning the A9iii.🤨
As tech advances, you can hit diminishing returns.
There are use cases for 120 fps, just like there are use cases for 100,000 fps on a Phantom camera. But the higher you go the more you get into rare air.
We saw the same thing in the world of HiFi where we got amazing tech to enable people to listen to frequencies outside of what they could hear!
The YouTube reviewers love to marvel at specs, and why not? I do the same thing. It's fascinating and fun. But most real customers just think about if they need a feature before spending money on it.
RD: The vast majority of pro sports does not require 120 fps to get the moment. You say you won't miss at 120 fps, but what's so magical about 120 fps then? When Sony comes out with a camera that can do 240 fps, will you say the same?
If you shoot 30 or 20 fps, you will get the shot, esp if you are a pro who knows what to do. Pro's got the shot at 15 fps, at 10 fps, even at 7 to 8 fps.
And of course there is always video. The video will show you the action the best anyway.
To me the best sports shots are the ones that get that certain expression of the athlete, the ones that capture the human moment. One example is Ali standing over Liston after knocking him out, in that classic moment.
There are scenarios for 120 fps but to me they are more like science experiment scenarios. Which is cool, I personally like those, but I don't know how popular they will be.
Of course you want as performant camera as possible. For this type of camera the handling of speed is key. The high fps,, the AF, the zero distortion on moving subjects for both photo and movie are very valuable characteristics. There was similar discussion when Sony lunched the A9 with stacked sensor and higher fps and AF beyond any DSLR ever made. The CaNikons claimed loudely that their DSLRs did all the necessary work. 5 years later and most of them have mirrorless stacked sensors :-). Its just that some photographers want the best possible result, and some others are laggers that eventually understands and use new camera capabilites. If you are more loyal to your camera brand than interested in actual usage value then you will argue for diminishing returns anytime a new technology leap comes.
Jen: "If you are more loyal to your camera brand than interested in actual usage value then you will argue for diminishing returns anytime a new technology leap comes."
You are correct; biases will enter into the assessment. But OTOH, there is usually a point of real diminishing returns. And if read what many Sony users are saying, they also say that we may have hit that. Certainly the Sony wildlife and bird photographers are mostly saying they will stick with the A1 as they value the higher resolution and don't need the higher burst rates.
Yes many wild life photographers value high resolution as it suits one of their needs - cropping and details. So if you are a Sony shooter the A1s 50Mpxl RAW @ 30fps is useful for them. But if Sony provided an A1ii with same resolution and doubled fps and zero distortion and very fast shutter speed then I think they would "quickly" preferr that. Suddenly the Colibris wings would be strait.
@A74me I agree 120fps is an overkill for most situations. It also becomes a problem if someone set that mode for a particular use case, forgot to change it for next shoot, and camera was silently filling up memory card!
I think it is another step in evolution though.
Next step is for AI tools to help us sift through the thousands of shots, keep the ones that meet defined criteria, and simply delete the rest. One easy thing already possible is grouping photos by bursts. That reduces the 100K images into say 500 bursts. Then the review needs to happen within each burst.
"If you shoot 30 or 20 fps, you will get the shot", "Pro's got the shot at 15 fps, at 10 fps, even at 7 to 8 fps."
You're very fond of the Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy! Flicking through a portfolio by a great photographer you'll be astounded by how often they captured the exact shot. That's because you're looking at final, curated images. For every great photo they may have taken a hundred or two indifferent ones or ones that missed it.
And if you'd ever recorded a burst of pictures in your life (at any speed) you'd know that when trying to capture a one off moment the more shots you can get the better. Especially in sport where photographers are looking for shots that capture the physical reality of the event as well as the human effort which may be expressed in a variety of ways. A photo of a runner breasting the tape with their eyes closed conveys a different impression to one where they are open and visibly straining for an example.
Nikon and Canon already offer 120 and 195fps in very limited form in their cameras for precisely that reason.
Jen Bruntnant is right, your posts are an attempt to downplay the utility of the GS because it is only a Sony feature. We can all imagine how you would have reacted if Canon had debuted the technology, with post after post crying 'game over' or 'game changer' and the resurrection of your theory that Sony was about to leave the camera business.
It’s funny because he would up-play the 120FPS of the Nikon Z9 all the time before…. And ignore the 11MP JPG limitation. Or the 195FPS R3 and ignore the lockup for 9 seconds following…. We now have a useable 120FPS 14-bit no compromise RAW image capture and he downplays it only because there’s a Sony badge on the front.
Satyaa, agree, that would be nice for dance estedford photos, but you will find people are using 8k video for that now, even 4k gives you a nice still from a clip.
The main point is that there is a point of diminishing returns, which no one rebuts. Where is it? Is it 120 fps? 240 fps? 1000 fps? I would say that most find 30 fps to be plenty and often excessive. How many A1 shooters regularly dial back to 15 fps?
Good sports shooters don't need that kind of speed in most situations.
The presence of so much video has also changed what is valued in still photos. The action itself you view in a video. I can go to ESPN or YouTube and watch virtually any action from any sports event to see any replay of any action I want.
What tends to have value are those moments of human emotion.
"The main point is that there is a point of diminishing returns" "Where is it? Is it 120 fps? 240 fps? 1000 fps?"
When you have to exaggerate so wildly to make your point it's clear you have no point.
The camera shoots 120fps, not 1000fps and the Z9 also shoots at that rate, though with a much reduced resolution. Clearly 30fps is not diminishing returns in the sports world unless you think Sony and Nikon built these cameras without listening extensively to sports photographers first.
It's the weekend and hopefully you're not working. You have spoken on here often of your many photographer friends and acquaintances, see if you can borrow a camera with a high frame rate from them or even just let you watch them using it and learn how with fast action more frames to choose from will increase your chances of getting a killer shot.
Sorry RD but you still evade the issue. My point is that yes, 120 fps does hit a point where it will have its uses but they will be narrow. And this is esp true in a world where I can watch all the video I want of the action over and over again. One can even record an event in 8K 60 on some cameras and extract 33MP still frames.
I also have news for you: the best sports pro's don't need as high a burst rate as a less skilled amateur because they have, well, skills. They know what to look for and how to anticipate it. Same as it ever was.
Many already find 30 fps to be unnecessary in most situations. But companies need new features to market and so here we are.
Let's put it this way. The DR and high ISO noise handling of the GS in A9III seems to be a bit less than other cameras. Many say that will not make a real world difference. Well the 120 fps will not make a real world difference to about the same extent, maybe even less.
There isn't an issue. Only your endless regurgitating of the same artificial talking points and demerits. I'd ask you why you bother but I know the reason.
@ TRU - "the best sports pro's don't need as high a burst rate as a less skilled amateur because they have, well, skills. They know what to look for and how to anticipate it. Same as it ever was."
eh, sure, the sport pros dont want the best equipment for the job. They would rather have a Z7 or EOS R. And they prefer F10 lenses rather than large appertures. It doesnt matter as they always take the picures at the right moment and with the right light, thanks to their skills. They will never ever move to stacked sensors or global shutter. Its too good technology so they get no possibility to show off their skills.
The point with you is “diminishing returns” only applies to Sony doing 120FPS. When Nikon does it (at only 11MP JPG vs. full 14-bit raw) you don’t mention diminishing returns. It’s the greats thing ever…
You’ll also say 14-bit RAW is diminishing returns but you were quick to mention whenever the A9 dropped to 12-bit at the fastest burst rate…
You try so hard to sound objective in your commenting, but you don’t fool anyone…
I still think this is confusing initial usability or mindset with long term usefulness. With other things around it, 120FPS might go from overkill to very useful.
And the real market of course is the pro or amateur who can now jump ahead of 5 years of practice to nail the same shot. The person who can already do it with older gear probably isnt the focus in the first place.
"With other things around it, 120FPS might go from overkill to very useful." Can be said about any thing. Time will tell. Maybe people will get more into doing sort of like science experiments with super high speed action...that would actually be nice.
"And the real market of course is the pro or amateur who can now jump ahead of 5 years of practice to nail the same shot."
That market has already been served by modern AF systems and high speed stacked sensors. In reality, the R5, R6, R6 II with a fast readout non stacked sensor serves that market as well. Many of the Sony non stacked sensors cameras, like the A7 RV, serve that market well with "only" 10 fps.
It can be a convenient indicator of your settings in cases where you don't need complete silence. Also when working with models, it's helpful for them to hear that you're taking pictures when not working with flash.
Oct 8 - "Sony a9 III: what you need to know". Today - "Five key points you need to know about the Sony a9 III". Okay guys, how many of these things do we _really_ need to know?
Well, it's definitely a start. One only knows that global shutters will get better & better. I'm also guessing that global shutter costs will eventually go down.
However, it seems most (not saying all) new camera bodies are now starting at $1,000 USA or higher. I imagine that camera bodies will continue to climb in price overall in the in the long run. It will all wash out. Hahaha!
Yeah, it took a long time but it's happened, jump back some 10 years and $2K FF bodies were still kinda mediocre and the main way to get anything cheaper was buying used or APS-C... $500-900 bodies have been disappearing simply because a lot of the people that would've bought those (or a P&S) are now happy putting that money towards a new phone instead.
Given how the market is shrinking, I'm kinda glad it's still as healthy and innovative as it is tbh, could be a lot worse.
It seems like few downsides to global shutter, but $6K (body only) for a 24MP camera may only reach a niche audience. But kudos to Sony for releasing it. My guess is Nikon and others will be getting in line to buy the sensor.
"R3 has eye directed focus". Actually that is a very useful feature...it's great to use. Until you experience it, it's may be hard to understand just how useful it can be. Ideally all cameras would eventually have that. For many that feature outweighs the advantages of a GS over a stacked sensor. I read a wedding photographer who said that he never wants to go back to a camera without eye directed focus.
BTW right now the R3 is down to $5000 so now it is less expensive than the A9III.
Yes the R3 with its 2017 sensor is on a fire sale given the A1 and Z9 destroy the R3 image quality and performance wise. The Eye controlled AF is a neat capability, but that's not going to be enough in light of the flagships available from Nikon and Sony. I wonder when Canon is going to release a flagship. They are a few years late..
"I wonder when Canon is going to release a flagship. They are a few years late."
The earliest R1 rumours are from mid 2020. It was scheduled for the fall of 2021. Some people were accused of trolling when they said that the R3 was obviously the rumoured R1 body with the name changed but they've been proved right.
Since it doesn't take three years to create a camera and bring it to market, even if the R1 came out next week it's clear that Canon wasn't working on anything when the A1 launched.
Assuming the R1 does come early next year and it's a high speed, high resolution stacked-sensor body then Canon is a whole camera generation behind Sony. Quite a sobering thought.
All of the above also assumes that Canon is okay with creating a new sensor just a couple of years after they've created a good, fast 45MP sensor. They will want to re-use the R3 and R5 sensors.
"R3 has eye directed focus". Actually that is a very useful feature...it's great to use."
I've never tried it but I'm quite prepared to believe that it is a very useful feature, indeed. Unfortunately it doesn't work with light coloured eyes - blue, grey, hazel. and that is a real problem. Not least because I'm not prepared to get an eye transplant.
So I checked out the video for five key features that make the a9 III notable and worth paying attention to. My take-away: DPR = Digital Press Release re-hash? Please, DPR, get up to your previous standards - or get lost.
okay, that is a bit harsh, but after your spent a long day and found key features, if you simply don't have the time to do a decent ,value-adding video, just skip it instead of pushing out a rushed job.
@ Mike: Sure, why should'nt I after being a trusting DPR follower for 18 years now? I really hope they get back to where they once were, but a few let-downs more and other review sites may be the way to not get lost but to find better alternatives.
Well I see you edited your original comment (after I posted mine). Seems you agree you were being too harsh as I did. Anyway, where do you post all of your thorough, thoughtful articles or videos on camera gear?
@ Mike - final reply: Feel free to check my DPR profile for my contributions as non-paying customer of this site since 2005. And feel free to send me a PM if you consider any of that content thorough or thoughtful - or not so.
Your last half dozen comments were complaints about how DPR runs things and threats about how other review sites will pick up their supposed slack, I'm sure the community here will miss you when you move on (tongue firmly in cheek).
@ impulses: Thanks for noticing the feedback i recently provided on how this site appears in front of the web-based photopgraphy review market. I hope DPR staff noticed, too. that IMHO would be for the better of this site. It's called feedback, and in case it is negative is often perceived as "complaints". I will certainly not hesitate to share my personal view of things, and should that trigger moderator actions I will accept that as DPR's feedback.
Not sure why you're suddenly afraid of the mods tho (and what little moderation the comments section sees, unfortunately), DPR takes it in the chin and keeps on doing their thing more often than not, IMHO. Just my own feedback!
I do think Ralf is onto something. I understand the team is much smaller now, and they have fewer resources, but I feel the loss of quality in DPR’s output has been very noticeable. And it’s been especially painful to notice how most of the recent complete reviews are: a) nowhere near as complete as they used to be; and b) you need to go back to April of this year to find a review that isn’t for Canikony (the Fujifilm X-T5) and to February for OMDS. Panasonic, Leica and Pentax haven’t seen a single review in 2023, despite all launching interesting products this year. Two of the things that set DPR apart from other sites was both the breadth of companies that they covered, and the depth of their reviews, and both aspects are obviously suffering now.
It’s saddening to think that, not far in the future, we might have no one to rely on but YouTubers for anything that isn’t Canon, Nikon or Sony.
"He edited it in response to my first comment." Not correct. I edited after posting and reviewing it, and in the meantime Mike shared his opinion on the original version. Until then I was unaware that a comment posted remains visible while editing it. Lesson learned on my side. This may explain his first reply "Ralf feel free to get lost….". I appreciate his attempt for concise follow-up.
Hi Mike, "Perhaps the more valuable lesson to have learned is to be more thoughtful in the first place…" Roger that, fully agreed. I had my panties in a bunch after having watched the DPR video in question, and should have not used the initial wording. The point I attempted to make got a bit lost in the process.
In a completely honest, non-trolling manner: I was wondering to myself if this is actually a game changer or not. Sure, global shutter is cool and an amazing technological feat. But what does it mean and for how many users?
The flash sync thing is big… for those who use fill flash. The rolling shutter is somewhat big… but the Z9 doesn’t have a mechanical shutter or global shutter and Z9 users aren’t complaining about these issues.
The pre buffer and high frame rates seem cool… but how long have we been hearing about how these technologies will change action photography forever but never quite did? Remember when the RED cameras came of age and people were talking about shooting videos ad picking frames from them? It was lauded as the death of the still camera. It never panned out. (Good god imagine the storage media costs!)
So yeah, I don’t want to be a downer here, this is undoubtably cool tech. But I remain skeptical as to the real world practical advantages.
It is revolutionary in the way, that one day all cameras most probably will come with a global shutter sensor. Though you might say that it is not the camera itself that is the groundbreaking part, but more the sensor itself, the fact is, that we now have a working global shutter sensor (GSS) in a modern mirrorless camera.
The reason you might not feel like the numbers might support a breakthrough in technology is because we in recent years have gotten really fast sensors that practically mitigates all the problems (the rolling shutter effect, or sensor lag), we had with earlier sensor designs.
You might end up seeing this as one of the cornerstones in sensor design technology, which did change the industry in the years moving forward. They were; the move from CCD to CMOS sensor technology, the ability to make FF size and bigger sensors, and now the Global Shutter Sensor.
Z 8/9 user here - LED screens are often problematic, showing some jagged artefacts, and I often cannot afford to slow the shutter speed down enough to get around them. Global shutter or even a mechanical shutter option (like a1 has) would be helpful in those circumstances (high frequency banding is blurred out by mech. shutter).
Lack of AA filter can also be annoying sometimes, producing visible moire on fabrics.
These cameras are great overall and very versatile, but they have troubles in certain circumstances. For photographers mostly working in circumstances where these flaws show up strongly, different bodies may be better.
The banding issues are a very small use case. Certainly most are not impacted, but for those who are, this GS can be a great solution.
But again, let's get real: how many people really have these problems and how much of a problem is it really?
I don't doubt that the issue exists, but if this is the biggest problem that GS solves, it's not a big enough deal. Now I believe that GS may solve other problems and open up some other possibilities, but we will see. But let's not hang our hats on the banding issue making GS some major game changer of a technology.
I think there's a lot of real world practical advantages that won't be fully realized until much further down the line tbh. Right now you aren't wrong, it is kinda niche, but this kinda speed in capture literally made current smartphone photography what it is (along with ease of use and connectivity)...
Once it's common on ILCs then manufacturers will be able to sink more R&D into ways to leverage it for other things like instant HDR and other frame stacking tricks that now take considerable work in post. We're at the tip of the iceberg, people said (and still say) similar things about mirrorless tech at first.
Ehh, I don't buy that, AI and cloud computing *just* started making big inroads on phones and still feels somewhat experimental or "good for what it is" (ie good enough for a quick edit)... Most of the more standard HDR stacking and tiling that phones have leveraged over the last few years has nothing to do with AI or even cloud computing, Google handles all processing on their phones...
They *just* announced an option for HDR video that will rely on cloud processing and hasn't even been released for the 8 Pro yet, it remains to be seen how well they can scale it tbh or whether it'll turn into some kinda service. A lot of what phones have been relying on for the past 6-7 years is simply super fast readout rates and very advanced processing algorithms.
Machine learning isn't foreign to camera manufacturers either, they've just been leveraging it for different things, rather than a magic editor they'll use it for more precise AF and accurate subject tracking, etc.
(continued) I think those lines will keep getting blurred. Up until recently the readout rate and pipeline had been a big hardware bottleneck for dedicated cameras (that could *maybe* manage 15-30 fps in the better instances, small potatoes for phones). The somewhat recent stacked sensor and global shutter milestones move that along, just need it all to be more affordable now.
I think that'll still take several generations tho, so > half a dozen years rather than the handful of years some would hope so, but it's the logical evolution. I just wonder if a global shutter will be standard on a stacked die or if we'll instead see progressive reading stacked sensors move into lower price tiers first.
I know what you're saying but my point is more that its a group of various technologies coming together at this point in history, making ILC's sort of in catchup. Maybe a lot of R&D will be spent on making things possible in-camera with ILC's. but I doubt it personally, given how things are progressing in general in this area.
Oh I do think it's entirely possible that camera manufacturers never catch up at all in that regard, at that point I dunno if the fidelity of stuff like AI aided edits and processing just ends up lapping dedicated cameras, or if another disruptor arrives into the market for the latter, or even if the status quo for phones changes and in order to push the hardware forward they experiment (again) with modular form factor and just take over entirely, etc.
I think that's hard to predict... But I do think one particularly grim possibility is that more isn't done with tech like global shutters, the big 3 don't play catch-up, and the entire market becomes more niche and obscure and much more stagnant... Basically what happened to hifi audio. It's totally one of the posible timelines heh, I hope not to see it but yeah...
I think one big difference is that market was all consumption, this one has pros and amateurs alike whose goal is creating, just trying to see it glass half full!
A US$6,000 camera can only change the game for cameras in that price range. Get back to me when Sony releases an affordable a6X00 with a global shutter.
If we keep continue on the same trajectory we are on right now with prices increasing year after year, by the time they do that, the A6X00 series will be $6000.
However, for anyone waiting, I would at least wait until a second (gen) body comes out. Let the early adopters be the guinea pigs.
Prices aren't really increasing that much year after year imo, specially if you take any amount of inflation into account. We're talking about ~$2K, ~$3K, and $5-6K price points that have maybe seen a surge of a couple hundred dollars over the last couple decades while at the same time the low end FF bodies got better, cheaper, and more capable than ever?
Seems like a net gain to me despite a shrinking market, which is amazing... We did lose the very low end of $500-700 crop bodies, but it seems that was inevitable. Tell anyone 10 years ago that they could buy a perfectly capable and not overly hobbled FF body for $1-1.5K and they wouldn't have let you be until you said where and how. We're still doing really well all things considered...
Heck even lens design and variety has improved so much even over the last 5 years... Specially if you aren't ignoring 3rd party stuff, that's a choice some make.
I know, but I was being a bit sarcastic. Actually, prices have stabilized a bit over the past few years at least if we add new technology being added to the bodies, the prices haven't skyrocketed necessarily. Lenses, yes and no because I think the introduction of low/mid-range lenses versus the top/pro lenses sort of dilute the numbers a bit. Obviously on the high-end it does seem that prices have gone up a fair amount, but not anything outrageous at least (for the most part--there are a few outliers I'd say).
Hands are so different in size, from country to country, from male to female, I don't think there is a "one size fits all" solution. This new grip makes the camera larger (again) not everyone is happy about that.
That actually is not a bad question. As the camera market shrinks, the major question for most will be if one enjoys using a dedicated camera enough to buy one.
Manufacturers need to focus just as much on fun and easy to use as they do advanced. Tech is great but it must be usable and desirable to merit its existence in the market.
I have fun capturing images I like with increased ease, not because the tool I use itself is somehow the point of me shooting with it, YMMV. I'm not trying to be anti-fun btw and I know some cameras will make certain use cases less than appealing, but at this level? Ehh... I wouldn't know.
Sony has announced the a9 III: the first full-frame camera to use a global shutter sensor. This gives it the ability to shoot at up to 120 fps with flash sync up to 1/80,000 sec and zero rolling shutter.
Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Why is the Peak Design Everyday Backpack so widely used? A snazzy design? Exceptional utility? A combination of both? After testing one, it's clear why this bag deserves every accolade it's received.
The new Wacom One 12 pen display, now in its second generation, offers photographers an affordable option to the mouse or trackpad, making processing images easy and efficient by editing directly on the screen.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.
Sony's gridline update adds up to four customizable grids to which users can add color codes and apply transparency masks. It also raises questions about the future of cameras and what it means for feature updates.
At last, people who don’t want to pay a premium for Apple’s Pro models can capture high-resolution 24MP and 48MP photos using the iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus. Is the lack of a dedicated telephoto lens or the ability to capture Raw images worth the savings for photographers?
Kodak's Super 8 Camera is a hybrid of old and new: it shoots movies using Super 8 motion picture film but incorporates digital elements like a flip-out LCD screen and audio capture. Eight years after we first saw the camera at CES 2016, Kodak is finally bringing it to market.
In this supplement to his recently completed 10-part series on landscape photography, photographer Erez Marom explores how the compositional skills developed for capturing landscapes can be extended to other areas of photography.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
Sony, the Associated Press and 'Photo Mechanic' maker Camera Bits have run a month-long field-test to evaluate capture authentication and a subsequent workflow.
A color-accurate monitor is an essential piece of the digital creator's toolkit. In this guide, we'll go over everything you need to know about how color calibration actually works so you can understand the process and improve your workflow.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
It's that time of year again: When people get up way too early to rush out to big box stores and climb over each other to buy $99 TVs. We've saved you the trip, highlighting the best photo-related deals that can be ordered from the comfort of your own home.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
Sigma's latest 70-200mm F2.8 offering promises to blend solid build, reasonably light weight and impressive image quality into a relatively affordable package. See how it stacks up in our initial impressions.
The Sony a9 III is heralded as a revolutionary camera, but is all the hype warranted? DPReview's Richard Butler and Dale Baskin break down what's actually new and worth paying attention to.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
DJI's Air 3 and Mini 4 Pro are two of the most popular drones on the market, but there are important differences between the two. In this article, we'll help figure out which of these two popular drones is right for you.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
The iPhone 15 Pro allows users to capture 48MP photos in HEIF or JPEG format in addition to Raw files, while new lens coatings claim to cut down lens flare. How do the cameras in Apple's latest flagship look in everyday circumstances? Check out our gallery to find out.
Global shutters, that can read all their pixels at exactly the same moment have been the valued by videographers for some time, but this approach has benefits for photographers, too.
We had an opportunity to shoot a pre-production a9 III camera with global shutter following Sony's announcement this week. This gallery includes images captured with the new 300mm F2.8 GM OSS telephoto lens and some high-speed flash photos.
The Sony a9 III is a ground-breaking full-frame mirrorless camera that brings global shutter to deliver unforeseen high-speed capture, flash sync and capabilities not seen before. We delve a little further into the a9III to find out what makes it tick.
The "Big Four" Fashion Weeks – New York, London, Milan and Paris - have wrapped for 2023 but it's never too early to start planning for next season. If shooting Fashion Week is on your bucket list, read on. We'll tell you what opportunities are available for photographers and provide some tips to get you started.
Sony has announced the a9 III: the first full-frame camera to use a global shutter sensor. This gives it the ability to shoot at up to 120 fps with flash sync up to 1/80,000 sec and zero rolling shutter.
What’s the best camera for around $1500? These midrange cameras should have capable autofocus systems, lots of direct controls and the latest sensors offering great image quality. We recommend our favorite options.
Comments