Well, not really.

It means that the well capacity of the sensels is low, meaning that compared to a sensor with a base ISO of 64 the pixels will saturate nearly 4 times faster.

ISO lower than base ISO 250 will basically result in a risk of highlight over exposure.

The native base ISO is 250. It has an extended base ISO of 125, which is a digitally enhanced expansion. So it's true base ISO is 250.

Make of this what you will, but it seems to give up almost 2 stops of DR to cameras with a base ISO of 100 (like almost all other Sony's) and a 2 full stops to a camera like the Z8/Z9 with base ISO of 64.

Whether that matters is up to the individual user. Once the camera is released we will get more real usage data.

This is back 10 years ago basically.

Except there was no global shutter 10 years ago. Even in cutting edge tech, some compromise is inevitable, I would say.

Sure, but we are talking about image quality here.

If you don't need global shutter the a9III is pretty much the worst option on the market at the moment.

Sure - but part of the image quality also is complete absence of banding under artificial light and absence of rolling shutter distortion, which is only possible with global shutter. If that's important to you, A9iii is the only player at the moment.

But - just like you say: if you don't need a global shutter, the A9iii is not for you.

Pl

This camera nor any sports camera for that matter is about IQ it’s literally never been their purpose… beating about something that has never been this category purpose just show how little people grasp this product

Also stacked has not solved those issues 99% not even remotely, you still had distortion, but most importantly there noticeable challenges with flash on electronics that was still half of what could be achieved on mechanically shutter and banding is not a solved problem far from
It.

For most it’s probably a most issue but for specific fields this solve those specific issues completely. Also hardly any will just have just one camera.. They likely have this and a A1 or a A7R line as their primary or secondary camera.

"This camera nor any sports camera for that matter is about IQ it’s literally never been their purpose". Funny, that's not what Sony marketing said about this or any other high speed camera. That's not even what other Sony promoters were saying before this camera.

Yes stacked sensors have solved 99% of the rolling shutter distortion problem. Please show me images of real world use cases that prove otherwise beyond airplane and helicopter propellers!

Very few care about banding. Very few even notice it. But yes if that is a big deal to you then a GS is for you.

Renault5, (great user name, btw), yeah, I also noticed how well lit the environment was for this, maybe because this camera might actually struggle in low light? The ISO range is not very big so maybe that will be a real issue, will have to wait and see.
For now, the technology seems very promising, but what will dictate the success of this camera is its real world capabilities and its usability for sports photographers, I mean, a Ferrari is a great piece of engineering but not for bumpy roads… for that I would rather take the Renault5! :D
All best!

It doesn’t solve 99% that’s an exaggeration, solve it means the problem stop existing that is clearly not the case, what it dos is make it less frequently a problem and that the problem is less extreme and less pronounced that you in many cases can live with the outcome. But bats, rackets, spheres etc. can still be bended and have slightly oval shape it’s just not nearly as pronounced as with none fast stacked and still in some cases you would need to resort to a mechanical shutter.

The stacked did not allow for removal of the mechanical shutter, largely because of the flash sync and banding, I also said it was a mistake that Nikon removed it in Z9 because it was still not fast enough. The GS allow the removal of the mechanical shutter, no stacked can successfully do so without introducing limitations.

TRU I literally have been writing so many times you gain some by giving some, this is true for all cameras.

That means what is given to gain is dependent on the field whether it is worth the price. For the field this is target at its well worth it as ultimate IQ never been the focus of the field getting that special shot is.

Would I use this at landscape no because it works against what you try to achieve. Would a A7R V that has high IQ be good fit for sports, not really because again it works against what you often try to achieve.

It’s a tool try to solve a very specific challenge, this is how Sony do product, they don’t do jack of all trades besides the A1 all other cameras are tailored towards use, like it or hate it.

@Thoughts R Us

"I don't have a problem with the camera..."

That's quite funny. You have written more on this camera across all its threads than any other DPR forum member.

The majority of your posts are negative, suggesting that the camera doesn't offer anything that doesn't already exist in some form or another on another body. Where the A9III undeniably offers unique features you claim these are either not needed or otherwise solely a technical or marketing exercise.

You ignore the 9 series positioning of the camera in Sony's line-up to promote the idea that it has no real user constituency and may never find one.

Your posts are easily seen as exercises in damage limitation (to other brands), and negative opinion-forming.

“ they don’t do jack of all trades besides the A1”

Which he also rubbished because it had a Sony badge

TRU rubbish everything that has a Sony badge on… I don’t truly grasp why he hate the brand so much

I know, but do not tell that to people thinking they must buy this camera to shoot sports. Sony might be worried... ;-)
Note : I correct myself : "do not provide...."

That was exactly my thought when I saw the images - there was not a single shot that benefited from the technology and in some it was outright detrimental to the result.

Would have been nice to see some swinging bats or rackets...the kind of thing the global shutter is supposed to be better at

Um have you ever heard of the shutter speed setting? (facepalm)

The funny thing is that the examples of a golf club or tennis racket have already been used before with the stacked sensor cameras. Sony themselves has used this in their marketing of cameras like the A9, A9II, and A1.

The stacked sensor with ultra fast readout solved most of the problems that global shutter solves. Sure a very very fast progressive readout is not quite the same as a simultaneous readout, but it's very very close. And it's close enough for many situations.

TRU but it doesn’t solve it you still find distortions even using the A1 or Z9 a stacked won’t get close before we are down at 1ms we are not really near that and at higher fps we are either at 12bit, jpeg and or locked AF and then people complain about reduced IQ but forget stacked at high fps has a rather notable drop in IQ.

Also this blows them out when it comes to flash sync and banding.

Of course it's about IQ, this is photography, we are photographers aren't we? We are not doing prototype testing...

Getting the shot it of course key and some compromise on IQ may be reasonnable if it helps get the shot. The question is to what extent this camera helps get shots other cameras with better IQ could not have gotten.

And this depends on the application. For most photographers in most situations, other options will offer significantly better image quality with no impact on the ability to get the image.

The Z9 AF is a work in progress???

You have just lost any hint of crebility you still had my friend... The only area where the Z9 AF was not best in class was BIF and firmware 4.1 has solved that. Comparisons all clearly show it to be better than the a1 now. The z9 always was better with people.

The test of any new tech: does it solve any real world problems? Does it open up new possibilities, perhaps ones I never thought of before? Does it make something I am already doing easier? Will I be able to do stuff that I had not been able to do before (in this case get photos I had not been able to get before)?

TRU:
Only you can answer that question.

I posted that with sarcasm. What can I say? To purchase the camera and 300mm lens, I would have to spend approximately $18000 CDN. That is not going to happen. I will have to make do with my current equipment which still cost too much. For those that can afford it, go for it. Enjoy.

Ive only ever had used cameras, all of them worked like new. I buy them at a store with warranty though also. My 5dm2 still works like new even.

Newer isnt better. Especially in this case.

a6600 will be a much better camera in pretty much every way than a a6100mk2. Unless there is some big revolution in color, etc....

Its up to you of course though.

They said mirrorless would be small and cheaper to make. Great marketing job done here.

Hi M Lenson, Mostly i just mean the quality of a CRT for the EVF viewfinder.

Canon and Toshiba developed flat CRT called SED though and its possible that could be implemented. If they apologize to the original patent holder....

CRT has perfect motion, response lag and pixel lag. 0.001ms. Black level, uniformity, and a true 50,000:1 contrast ratio.(not LCD fake contrast ratios) Power efficiency better than LCD also.

The EVF in the R3 is quite nice, but there is loads of room left to make far better EVFs.

"Among the 70,000+ images shot this year in pro settings I had around 10 where led flickering caused an actual issue and zero where I felt limited by flash sync speed, very few where 20 fps didn't get the best possible shot. And I tend to be among the 1% of photographers for which this would actually have benefits."

lol nice made-up story about being part of the 1% while explaining how you're part of the 99%. I have serious doubts about you being a pro considering how engrossed you are in gear wars online, particularly when it comes to praising Nikon and undermining Sony. You say no viewer will care and that you're a pro, yet obviously you have no business sense about sponsors wanting clear visibility of their logos and adverts.

if you have a camera with a perfect EVF, top-grade AF, and 20fps with a deep buffer, well gee, congrats on having a top-end camera that you don't feel the need to upgrade from. I have a Mercedes and the latest BMW doesn't interest me. What a story!

@Make Photography Great again
Any feedbacks on the content or are you going to stick to personal attacks only?

I am a semi-pro, not a full time pro. Never claimed I was one, I wrote pro-settings which the situations I was in totally were.

99.9% of camera owners, DSLRs or mirrorless, have never sold a single picture in their life nor taken photographs in demanding environments where there is only one chance to get the shot or the video. I have been doing that for years. And among those who do, many shoot landscape or in the studio and never face any of the conditions in which the GS of a a9III would be valuable. I do.

So I wrote 99% very conservatively, the reality is probably closer to 99.99%.

And as I wrote, I may buy an a9III as I own and excellent 50mm f1.2 GM and Sony Profit trigger that would cover 70% of my needs (I used to own an a9II and a7rIV). I have never criticized Sony, I love the brand and have a business relationship with this great company. Believe it or not.

@Steve Anderson
I see your point, but what I meant by perfect is perfectly suitable to follow motion and capture even very fast action in low light, to review focus accuracy in the field also. At least my Z8/Z9 are doing an amazing job at that and so is my GFX-100II, although not quite as well despite the 3 times higher resolution. My experience with the a1 was very good too, I was a bit less impressed by the R3 but it was still totally usable.

Having used (D)SLRs for years and still owning a P1 XF body after an Hasselblad H6D-100c I have extended OVF experience with some of the best ever designer.

Can you get hold of a hummingbird?

How about musical instrument vibrations? Maybe capture the movement of guitar strings or a drum skin as they are played.

@Dale Baskin - can you capture the emotional woes of jealous Canon loyalists - who have acquired overnight badges as bashers and are now the global ambassadors of glass half empty? They weep at around 120fps :)

Many will be shocked that after all the hype, it doesn't bring anything significant. The big advantage of this camera will be its 120 fps, or perhaps 60 fps because the the 120 might fill a bit too quick. Because beyond the hype, what photos did people not be able to take that this camera will magically be a ton better. No one apart from geek will be in admiration that the blades of a helicopter or plane are how they should be.

"Not possible at 120 fps."

....For the whole entire frame of the sensor. In a composite raw, A9III gives you 32 images in a rapid succession. Even 8 raw files merged and aligned together can already significantly reduce noise and improve DR. Smartphones have been doing this using computational photography. The pre shot feature on A9III where it starts to shoot while half pressing the shutter seems borrowed from Google Pixel's buffering images off the sensor until you press the shutter button to display a sequence of photos that you can choose for the best shot.

The problem with the implementation of the composite RAW is that you have to use a computer with special Sony software to put it all together for the final image. That's not very handy for sports shooters and photo journalists who need to put out the final image as soon as they take it.

For everyone else it is also somewhat of a hassle and not many do it.

Smartphones put the images together almost instantaneously so the user doesn't really even notice. BTW, on Apple iPhones they do have a kind of automatic pre shot mode where when the camera is open, it is recording images in a photo stream temporarily. If you press the shutter it uses some of those images before hand to composite the final image.

"The problem with the implementation of the composite RAW is that you have to use a computer with special Sony software to put it all together for the final image. "

It makes no difference when you process RAW files to get the maximum DR out of your sensor anyway by pushing the shadows and recovering highlights with a computer using a photo editing software. In regular cameras, you deal with single raw file while with this one, you are dealing with multiple raw files shot in succession.

It does make a difference in use cases where a photojournalist or sports photographer has to get the shot and then get it out to the world ASAP. No time to go to your computer and composite your photos from a sequence of RAWs.

The fact is that most people do not go through the fuss about compositing multiple photos. Yes they may edit RAWs on their computer and yes this isn't that difficult to do, but most people do not do it.

Also you don't know until you composite those photos if you got the desired shot or not. You are deprived of one of the main advantages of digital photography and that is being able to check your work as you go along.

It's not a big deal because most people don't use this feature anyway.

TRU: “That's not very handy for sports shooters and photo journalists who need to put out the final image as soon as they take it.”

No, it isn’t. But can you please explain why a sports or news photographer would either want or need to upload a composited RAW stills file to anybody?

If, as an editor, for some reason I wanted one, and I really can’t think why, unless I needed some minuscule crop, and then I’d be asking the photographer in that case why the **** they hadn’t a lens with them that got that shot for me, I’d have someone do that in-house on a Mac using software, just as Art Editors—or assistants on site at big sports events—have used Photoshop or other photo editing applications for decades.

@Photo-opinion: we are in agreement. I am not the one trying to make the case that this raw compositing mode is so useful, esp to this type of camera. I am merely pointing out that unless the compositing is done in camera and at a fast rate, that having to wait to do this on your computer is not that useful.

Sony has listed lenses and I don't see 3rd party. It'll be the same story.
If you check through the list, not all Sony lens are compatible...either. This looks like lens specific.
We all quickly jump and say Sony is protecting it's lenses but there could also be proprietary technology involved and the 3rd party lenses may actually have limits.

Specific, you mean 37 lenses, it's all the lenses since 2018 about.

Nikon's 11 mpx jpgs look just as good as some of these files ... service the same niche (120 fps w. 1 sec pre-capture, full focus) ... 1/80,000 shutter speed is a party trick ... very few strobes even at 1/128 have t.5 duration that short. Most flashes at full power are less than 1/1,000 ... about a 2 stop advantage over mundane 1/200 max sync ... besides, high speed sync will often suffice.

Don't get me wrong ... great achievement ... someone had to go first ... well done Sony.

After all the hype, so geek will be in admiration that the blades of a helicopter or plane are how they should be. Because beyond the hype, what photos did people not be able to take that this camera will magically be a ton better. The only thing I see that will be better for sport photographers 60 fps full raw. I don't even think the 1 sec something in 120 fps will be that usable in many case.

@Jonah1 you can't see it in the pictures, but there is a massive strobe box above the volleyball net. Huge! Massive strobes for the fighting ring too. Chris shows it in the petapixel video.

Ah yes. I'm very curious to see the comprehensive tests and compare with other cameras. By the way, the image quality from what I'm seeing right now is really pretty bad for this price point. And its not just small IQ sacrifice. I could be wrong though. Let's see.

ISO 250 plus the other DR/noise drawbacks will not allow it to compete on IQ.

My aps-c 7Dm2 will have better IQ because of ISO100-160.

The a9iii has traded IQ for the other benefits. Its up to us to decide if its worth it.

Also, you(we) are the crazy person if we buy this for landscapes or portraits.

@Steve - I agree with you. I was about to say that my D7200 will have better or comparable IQ. I will wait and see the comprehensive tests.

Yes there could be some cool science explored with this by the average person. The real scientists have equipment even better suited for this (like Phantom cameras) but for most of us here this could open up horizons.

@left eye. You should just write and forget about what is popular or not.

What's ironic is that due to this obsession with tech specs through the years, largely driven by gear heads and reviewers, and some by marketing by the major brands, is that perspective has been lost. And Sony has been a big beneficiary of this attention to tech specs.

I've been in discussions here where someone has criticized another brand due to tiny difference in arcane specs that no one can see, but people still insist on doing it.

So when something like this comes along, with some potentially breakthrough tech, people fall back on looking at specs that may mean little in practice. But in this case it's Sony being roasted instead of other brands. Usually Sony sensors score just about highest in every category.

Time and testing will tell if the compromises mean much. But my instinct is that they won't mean as much as some will make it out to be.

But the lesson is that a lot of the DR and noise problems were solved long ago and we don't need to worry so much about specs.

Sports photos are all about getting the shot & getting it out as quickly as possible. Nobody should be judging this camera for out & out image quality.
The majority of sports images are viewed on-line, soon after the event. For that purpose this is more than good enough.
There do look to be trade-offs, at least in the sample jpeg images. The image quality in the high ISO shots (at 100% where the majority of people won't notice anyway) is not that great, but no banding, no rolling shutter, those 2 things are a big deal & I'd say more important than outright image quality for sports & fast action photography.
RAW images from a final production model will be a better indicator of image quality than these.

@Myles - exactly. There is a different criteria for sport’s photography, we can point to the single digit dslr as a prime example. Not always the best camera for say landscapes, but for its intended purpose ie; sports/action few cameras can really match them. The GS in the A9iii is to help close the few caveats that exist with mirrorless namely EVF lag making the camera far more responsive and reliable for these applications, whilst offering all the benefits (and then some) of current mirrorless.

@m_black That's actually wrong, you can shoot directly after but then it goes to 80fps and then 22fps. So you can keep shooting but the speed goes down.

You can also shoot at 60fps and then you get 4 seconds, and then again it's not finished, you can keep shooting but at 15fps.

"120fps... 1.6 second long and 11-23 seconds to clear the buffer."

I can understand the 1.6 seconds...but does it take that long to clear the buffer? Has anyone confirmed that? If so that really limits the camera in sports action at least when using the 120 fps.

Edit: I just saw the answer above which was posted after I started writing this post.

@Thoughts R Us,

I was there at the press event with Dale and Richard.

I can confirm that this is FALSE.

The A9III can just keep shooting. It slows down a bit, of course, but it doesn't halt until the buffer is cleared.

Someone is having PTSD about the Canon 1D II in 2004. ;-)

BTW, at 30 FPS and when shooting compressed raw, I clocked a staggering ~14 seconds of continuous shooting before the buffer had just the slightest blip.

So, quite effectively, this camera is a raw video camera for those who only ever do quick social media B-roll style clips.

For people who uses 3rd party lenses. Forget about maximum burst.

Astro: thanks for clearing that up. Pretty cool that you got to go the press event.

@AkinaC,

Unfortunately, yes. I thew the Tamron 17-50mm f/4 on, and it was indeed locked at something like 15 FPS if I recall.

I honestly think it may have more to do with the lens' actual ability to whip the aperture iris open and closed, and/or whatever else is related to the responsiveness required to blaze at 120 FPS. Maybe Sony throttled non-Sony lenses, maybe they didn't. Either way, if they did create an intentional limit, I suspect that not having one might have resulted in nightmarish glitches in operation.

I think we fail to comprehend just how insanely fast 1/16000 sec and 120 FPS actually is.

I remember similar complaints when Nikon switche from AF-D to the AF-S (Silent Wave motor) autofocus. Simply put, newer technology is often so superior to older technology that it creates compatibility issues.

We'll have to wait and see what happens, of course; maybe Tamron and/or Sigma etc. will be able to update their lenses' firmware once the A9 III protocols become public...

@Astro
I can understand Sony is making sure their 1st party lens has significant advantage in high end. The original purpose of open to 3rd party is to gain market share and strong userbase to have some eventually move up to their flagships.

For everyone here gently explaining why Sony lenses work better than third party ones on a camera like this one, and how "newer technology is often so superior to older technology that it creates compatibility issues"...please remember that when evaluating other brands.

I've seen some criticism on these forums about how 50 year old lenses don't work as well with adaptors on a certain brand, and other similar stuff.

Remember if Sony doesn't have to be perfect, then other brands don't either.

Which this GS resolves.

Build a non GS camera with none of the drawbacks of ES/EFCS/Mech shutter first, not after your statement right?

EVF refresh rate has nothing to do with stuttering or holding last photo.

I prefer OVF because of all the IQ problems with EVFs. I unfortunately see all their issues.

The Z9/Z8 offers dual stream tech for the EVF that allows for true blackout free, lag free viewing.

A9 III is not solving the progressive display on the EVF. https://m.dpreview.com/articles/9503458063/sony-a9-iii-what-you-need-to-know
"Interestingly, because the viewfinder and rear screen are still refreshed progressively, it can appear that the camera is exhibiting rolling shutter in some extreme conditions. If you examine the individual frames, all the verticals are straight: it's just the refresh speed of the display panels (the rear LCD in particular) that gives the impression of slight distortion."

'go back' to painting?

- just take time out of the equation please.

@Tweets_Core

"They limit the 3rd party lenses at 15fps."

No they don't. Most third part lenses just won't do more than 15 fps.
But 1bwana1 on Fred Miranda managed to get 16.5fps on his Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1672767/0

@Tweets_Core

Trust who you want - it's still not true.

@RubberDials
Man, you're up to your nick.

Most other cameras can't even do 15 fps... my A7IV sure can't.
If you are shooting an A9III or any other sports camera you really want the best autofocus, so you want Sony native brand lenses. It's really a non-issue in the real world.

@Tweets_Core sorry but I don't do "matter of principles" anymore... if it's not a real world issue it's not an issue, that's how I see it. Again, sorry but I am extremely pragmatic.
Btw, do you have any technical insight or articles proving this choice is not caused by lens limitations?
On some systems (like micro 4/3) OIS and IBIS can't sync with other brands, is that technical limitation easier to accept somehow?

Yes, I understand. And probably the A9II is a slight step back from something like the A7iii or Z6 with a non-stacked BSI sensor. There is no free lunch but Sony has done a pretty good job nonetheless here IMHO!

you would just use mechenical 🤔

For high flash sync, no… are you getting the fps with mechanical? No…

No rolling shutter for action shots if you just use the mechanical shutter, or EFCS.

Mechanical Shutter still has some rolling shutter effect)
And best FF mech shutters tops out at 16 fps, nowhere near EFC.

To an extent, but these present other limitations and EFCS will be more prone to rolling shutter effects and is not completely eliminated with full mechanical, especially with fast action/panning. Whilst a less common issue with a fully mechanical shutter, it's simply not even a consideration with a GS.

For these sample shots, the shutter speed, the flash and lighting used - If you think a rolling shutter camera, like the a1 would give much worse images or the shots wouldn't be able to capture, you have no idea what you are talking about.

@sadovski: Well, for the action I shoot the SS is up high enough, I guess, so I've never seen it when using a mechanical shutter. And yes, I've been shooting long enough to know that you can still see the effect with a film camera.

A74Me - Why for this review? To see how it works for situations where it can be used. A first chance to try it. Also I don’t think this is a review.

They did the artificial lighting to show the global shutter could take it. Of course, they also showed the image quality isn't all that great.

Just to clarify, this isn't a review, and we haven't drawn any conclusions from a pre-production camera beyond how it handled when shooting it. We'll do a review once we have a production camera and can shoot it under controlled conditions.

why would anyone shoot a portrait at iso 4000 at a shutter speed of 10,000 with fill flash 🤔🤔 and still have noise in the underchin shadow, just doesnt make sense. wouldnt you know that everone is going to pull thes images apart.