selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I understand it very well. It’s a mathematical certainty that will dawn on you in time.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Here's something interesting from the B&H website:

"Battery Type 1 x NP-FZ100 Rechargeable Lithium-Ion (Approx. 400 Shots)"

Does that mean that after 3 bursts of 120 shots (about 3 seconds) you will need to change batteries?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Here's another dose of reality.

Typical broad daylight light value is about LV 15 and indoor sporting events sports about LV 8-9.

As luck would have it, the weather sucks today, LV 13.33, about 1.33 stops darker than Sunny 16.

If you look at the result the noise level will be obvious. Now imagine that same image at 1/32000s and ISO 80000. It would look the same except for the noise level which would be horrible because the sensor will receive 1/10th as much light.

Fill flash would not help at all since the subject distance is too great. It might work fine for nearby subjects, but they are not going to be moving enough to warrant a really high shutter speed.

1/3200s f/16 ISO 8000

(Download)

Grahame Loc: Fiji

I can't understand why you are referencing "sporting events" and giving examples with an aperture of f/16?

Don't sports photographers, generally aim for subject isolation, I know I do? They are also unlikely to have little interest or need in using shutter speeds is excess of 1/2500s which provide adequate stoppage of movement in the vast majority of cases, inside and outside.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It seemed logical since gwilliams6 brought up the use of 1/80000s for sporting events where the action can be fast. The A9 III is getting released in time for the Paris Olympics.

You certainly can reduce the aperture and lower the ISO to reduce the grain. But you still may be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I can lower it to ISO 250 at f/2.8 and 1/3200s but to use 1/32000s at f/2.8 I would need to use ISO 2500.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

I've not seen any suggestion of someone using, or the need, of 1/80,000s for sports here.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

gwilliams6 Keeps mentioning it.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

gwilliams6 keeps mentioning it.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Come on, you are again exaggerating.

gwilliams6

The Art of Photography:
Sony A9 III :: Global Shutter is REAL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9XI0KdTGCs

Cheers

gwilliams6

No, the CIPA battery ratings are still based on how DSLRs use batteries, and ALL mirrorless cameras (all brands) get many times their CIPA ratings.

For CIPA ratings they focus, shoot, view image and turn off camera, then turn on camera again, repeat, over and over, one shot at a time. No one really shoots like that for each single shot. And if you are in Autofocus you dont have to refocus from default infinity focus after every single shot, so you are using less battery in real-world usage.

Also most sports shooters will be using the twin battery pack with this or any other pro Sport camera.

Dont let the CIPA ratings scare you. I get many multiples of the CIPA number of shots with my Sony A1, A9, A7RV, A7SIII, literally thousands of shots to each battery. And so do Canon and Nikon and other mirrorless cameras users.

Cheers

gwilliams6

I guess you haven't shot fast sports or athletes close up in broad daylight when you need both a fast shutter speed and a bit of flash, not to overpower the shot but enough to fill in a shadow.

You obviously have no experience shooting what these pro sports photographers like myself do all the time, and will be doing at the Olympics with handheld and remote cameras close to the subjects.

It is useless for me to try and educate you to my reality of the past 50 years as a Worldwide Award Winning Sports and fast action photographer, so I wont try any further. Your charts mean nothing to what A9III users will be successfully doing with the A9III with a global shutter .

Sony knows who it was making the A9III for, and that is certainly not you.

Cheers and best to you.

gwilliams6

From UHH MDI Mainer:
A9 III is "Faster than a speeding bullet-literally."

"However, the coolest thing is something that pro photographer Diego Gonzalez Souto showed [James Artaius editor of Digital Camera World]: the camera can stop bullets in midair, just like Neo in the Matrix."

Souto is a sports photographer in Madrid, Spain and a Sony ambassador.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/this-camera-can-literally-stop-bullets-in-midair?utm_term=992DEDD7-526A-412A-BE46-95D0145392A1&lrh=e830659ed3992e0d7a6190e6aa9b9d3719431486fc082b1aed281b07604a1e75&utm_campaign=75AC6D4F-39F0-41CB-A47C-7C5D939AC64B&utm_medium=email&utm_content=406099EF-A00F-48B6-AE66-F25593F186DE&utm_source=SmartBrief

There are shooting sport events all around the world including the Olympics. Now those bullets can be caught in mid air (without a fast strobe), and fast archery arrows also, and more fast athletes and fast action racing at their critical moments of action.

As a longtime photojournalist that has covered all sports around the world and has both Pictures Of The Year, and World Press Photo Sports Awards to show for it, I absolutely would find many uses for the fast shutter speeds of the A9III covering sports.

Cheers

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I will concede that I have not done a lot of sports photography but I have done my share of portraits.

Portraits done from a few feet away can benefit from fill flash. It has nothing to do with whether the subject is an athlete or anyone else. An ultra-high speed shutter probably does not improve matters. A modest burst rate is plenty to capture a series of changing expressions. Besides, the flash needs to recover and that can slow the burst rate down unless you back off on the power.

On the other hand, fast moving sports situations are seldom close up. Flash has a limited range and the drop off in intensity is significant. It's very difficult to get the benefit of fill flash for a fast-moving animal or athlete even for a single shot. But you can do a lot with a camera whose DR lets you pull up the shadows. Also, there are some situations where flash is not allowed.

In your experience, have there been instances where you wished you could go above the A9 II maximum shutter speed of 1/8000s mechanical or 1/32000s electronic?

I'll grant you that the global shutter is a great idea, theoretically. I look forward to it becoming available at a lower price point and on a camera with a wider DR and lower base ISO.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Yes there are specific sports, shooting and archery are two of the obvious where a higher shutter speed capability is going to give you a greater opportunity to freeze the movement of the projectile more. The degree of 'freezing' is of course going to be determined by both shutter speed and object movement speed.

Capturing the bullet just in front of the barrel is a great example of the shot most would want to get. I read a very interesting article the other day that went into depth regarding the ' % chances' of getting this shot when you have the ability of 1/80,000s plus 120fps. With bullet speeds from various guns quoted it's surprising how far the bullet actually moves between consecutive frames.