Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

After seeing the camera global shutter sensor recently introduced the question arises.
Was the global shutter sensor rushed into production just to be first?
It seems to have sacrificed most features people here are adamant as being necessary for decent photos today especially low noise, high DR and great low light performance.

BebuLamar

Nikon doesn't have the global shutter and yet they don't have the mechanical shutter either in their Z8 and Z9. I haven't heard any complaints on this.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

The global shutter has been in the works for a long time. We all knew what had to be overcome. Sony managed to get it close to acceptable and produced a niche type product to satisfy the needs of a few that need the strong points that it brings while at the same time, exposing everyone to what it eventually will be able to bring once more refinements are perfected. "Global Shutter" is now in everyone's vocabulary. At some point, it won't cost so much and won't have certain penalties.

Sony achieved what they wanted to happen. Everyone will be watching future products for the next iteration.

And those few who needed this capability now will start showing off what they are able to do with it keeping interest alive.

It will be interesting when the released product is shipping and it has RAW capability because the reviews will start. I look forward to reading those reviews.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

So?
Nikon still uses a scanning sensor like all the other cameras made by everyone else.
So no big deal if they forgot the shutter.
This post is not about your Nikon it is about global shutter sensors.
Duh.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Nikon has managed to greatly reduce the sensor read time and they have a very good product. But it is not Global Shutter, thus has restrictions in things it can do compared to what the Sony can do.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

So you believe that there are no severe problems with the global shutter?
It is fast is all I see with many IQ sacrifices in order to get the speed.
The Sony A9III is not the first or unique global shutter. They have been around for years but for reasons given still fall way short of scanning sensors which all other major cameras have including all other Sony.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

The severe problems are only problems to those who deem them to be.

The A9III has a base ISO of 250. It is not going to compete with the other camera offerings in the area of noise and dynamic range. Where it will excel is areas that speed is paramount such as sports, or where ridiculous firing speeds are needed for the flash. It is a niche product, and for those that need what it does, it will be fine. And we do not yet even know how bad it really is. All we have seen is a preproduction release without even RAW capability. Soon we will know more.

But this is not the camera for everyone. It is not a general purpose camera.

It is true that global shutter has been around for quite some time. But mainly in industrial applications. The weaknesses have been visible for all to see. But this is the first for a camera of this type. Sony has broken the ice, and many are now aware of Global Shutter. This is good. We may not soon see another Global Shutter camera since certain things do need to be improved. But some of the best sensor engineers in the world will be all over this. It is likely that some breakthroughs will happen.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Absolutely.

tcthome Loc: NJ

[quote=JimH123]The severe problems are only problems to those who deem them to be.

And we do not yet even know how bad it really is.

If it is bad at all. How the processor & firmware handle the files, etc. We now shoot at some pretty high ISO's without giving it much thought as compared to 5 years ago.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Amazingly the back tracking hypocrisy expressed here.
A couple of years ago if your brand had the DR, noise, ISO, resolution etc..numbers of the a9III the camera would have been condemned as pretty worthless.
Birders especially here.
Remember, global shutters are in no way new to digital sensors, been around for years they just fail still to this day to meet the image quality, at least formerly here, of photographers who pixel peep every inch of the photo.
These are observations that are facts.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Reviews have been on pre-production models so far. Until PRODUCTION models get into the hands of consumers we will not be able to accurately forecast results.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Cameras are very complex systems. Design and manufacture of complex systems involves carefully balancing a whole host of trade-offs. That's why it is always interesting (and sometimes a little bit fun) to watch how "single issue foamers" sometimes get so knotted up in one line of a camera (or some other device's) specification sheet. Technological progress will usually eventually ease the problem, as advances help everything on both sides of the tradeoff, but that can take a while. And sometimes, the tradeoffs are associated with affordability, not capability.

In the early years of this century, we had at work an Olympus digital high speed video camera system that we used to analyze operating problems in our factory machinery. It could capture several thousand frames per second with a reasonably achievable level of lighting. It did not exhibit rolling shuuter or any other distracting artifacts. It did cost about $50,000.

Fifty years ago, when pocket scientific calculators were new, there was a big thing over precision of results. HP calculators worked with and displayed 10 digits. Texas Instruments scientific calculators also displayed 10 digits, but worked internally with 12 or 13 digits. The extra laces were called "guard digits," but were easily accessible by simply subtracting the visible ones. TI claimed that their calculators were "more accurate," despite the fact that both of them provided results with between 4 and 8 more digits of precision than were generally appropriate for engineering calculation that would be done on a hand-held calculator.

By the way...a foamer is an over-enthusiastic railfan. Comes from the situation where poirly treated or over-agitated water would "foam up" in the boiler of a steam locomotive, reducing its efficiency.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

And in the last 20 years how different are "preproduction models" from the introduced product?

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

A new review of the A9III is currently underway at dpreview.com. See: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a9-iii-review-in-progress

And here is a paragraph of what they had to say about image quality:

"We've looked at the a9 III's image quality and have found that its performance is up to a stop behind those of contemporary full-frame cameras. Essentially the halving of the photodiode size halves the amount of light the sensor can tolerate. This raises the base ISO, limiting the maximum image quality the camera can deliver (ie: comparing base ISO to base ISO).

The added complexity of the sensor's design also means that it isn't able to offer a second low-noise readout path as has become common in dual conversion gain sensors that dominate the market. This sees up to a stop noise penalty, relative to its full-frame peers.

All of that said, a lot of sports shooting doesn't necessarily happen at ISO 100, so being limited to ISO 250 or higher needn't be a major issue. Likewise, even a one-stop increase in noise at high ISO isn't likely to be a deal-breaking difference, especially if the a9 III's global shutter and incredibly rapid burst rates mean that it can get a shot that its rivals simply miss.

So, while the a9 III's sensor tech may not make as much sense in other cameras, for the high-speed users it's designed for, these aren't necessarily a significant drawback."

gwilliams6

UHHers lets get real here. The ONLY reason architect put up this thread is his anti-Sony, pro-Canon mindset, just a fact. It is his answer to all the threads touting this historical release from Sony, heaven forbid, from Sony first and NOT from Canon. LOL

All the major makers, including Canon, have been in a race to get the first fullframe global sensor shutter hybrid camera to market. Trust me if Canon had been first, you would have seen architect singing its praises far and wide here in UHH, LOL

Global sensor shutter from Sony and others have been around in industrial cameras and some cinema cameras for awhile. The A9III with its global sensor shutter in a fullframe hybird camera is a historic release, no matter the naysayers.

All makers will continue to make BSI, and BSI stacked mirrorless cameras, in addition to having their own global shutter release.

The A9III and global sensor shutters aren't for everyone, but they ARE for many pros and hobbyists alike that will make great use of its exceptional speed with absolutely no rolling shutter in stills and video, and more.

All rolling sensor shutters, including the best of the fast stacked sensors like in the Nikon Z9/Z8, Canon R3, Sony A9/A9II and A1 still are affected by rolling shutter in certain situations with certain fast subjects and fast panning in video and stills.

Only a true global shutter eliminates all rolling shutter, eliminates all banding and flicker issues, and allows flash sync at all shutter speeds, just the facts.

Does everyone need a global shutter camera, of course not. And don't expect all makers to have them in all formats and all price ranges. For now they will be a pricey premium option for pros and hobbyists that can afford them and can use them.

I personally currently have stacked BSI sensor 50mp Sony A1; BSI sensor 61mp A7RV, and 12mp BSI sensor videocentric A7SIII. I shoot all subjects, worldwide . I dont necessarily need a global shutter for landscapes, but yes I could use it for sports ,fast action and fast wildlife, and even for portraits with flash at high sync speeds.

Is there a slight trade-off with dynamic range and high ISO noise at this point in global shutter development, yes. But not so much that I cant get rid of any excess noise in post, and still have plenty of dynamic range for all my professional uses, just a fact.

I know many fellow pros, like myself who have pre-ordered the A9III, and will use its global sensor shutter to great advantage.

Just follow the great A9III global shutter sensor images you will see from the Super Bowl, NCAA Basketball Tourney, Major League Baseball, Grand Slam Tennis, and the Summer Olympics and from top wildlife shooters around the world.

Then make your own decision if this Sony A9III, and global shutter sensor cameras are worthy of the praise they are getting, and not what UHHer architect has to say to try and diss it, and diss anything Sony, LOL.

From PetaPixel Jan. 5, 2024:
For Pros, The Sony a9 III’s Speed Will Be Worth the Image Quality Tradeoff

https://petapixel.com/2024/01/05/for-pros-the-sony-a9-iiis-speed-will-be-worth-the-image-quality-tradeoff/

Cheers and best to you all, whatever brand you prefer.