For over a decade, I've been eagerly anticipating the release of a full frame digital global shutter camera. I'm honestly surprised it took this long, but it's finally here in the new Sony a9 III.
Traditionally, digital CMOS sensors are relatively slow to read an image, which causes distortion many people call the jello effect. To combat this, mechanical shutters are used in front of digital sensors to expose the sensor to light for a specific amount of time, and then block all light to the sensor as it's "reading" the image line by line. This works for still images, but doesn't work for video, when the mechanical shutter isn't used. Without a mechanical shutter, the average camera sensor is too slow to sync with a flash, but most mechanical shutters can only sync with a flash up to around 1/250th of a second.
The Sony a9 III changes all of this with the introduction of the first full frame global shutter. Every pixel on the sensor can be read simultaneously, eliminating this distortion, and the need for a mechanical shutter.
This breakthrough means that photographers no longer have to contend with the limitations of a physical shutter, such as maximum sync speeds and rolling shutter artifacts. With a maximum shutter speed of 1/80,000 of a second and the ability to capture up to 120 raw frames per second, the a9 III sets a new standard for speed and precision in photography.
However, the implementation of a global shutter does come with trade-offs. The camera features a 24-megapixel sensor, which may seem modest compared to some of its competitors. Additionally, its ISO performance appears to be about 1 stop worse than other modern Sony cameras. Nonetheless, these compromises are outweighed by the benefits of a global shutter for many photographers, particularly those who prioritize capturing fast-moving subjects without distortion.
In terms of video capabilities, the a9 III shines as well. With its global shutter, it offers flawless footage, free from rolling shutter artifacts, even when capturing fast motion or panning shots. Moreover, the camera allows for perfect synchronization with strobe lighting during video recording, opening up new creative possibilities for filmmakers.
One of the standout features of the a9 III is its autofocus system, which builds upon Sony's already stellar reputation in this area. The camera can recognize and track not only human subjects but also animals, birds, insects, and even vehicles with remarkable accuracy. This advanced autofocus capability ensures that every shot is sharp and in focus, even in challenging shooting conditions.
While the Sony a9 III represents the pinnacle of digital imaging technology, its high price tag may be prohibitive for many photographers. At $6,000, it's undoubtedly an investment, and for those on a budget, it may be difficult to justify the cost. However, as with any cutting-edge technology, we can expect to see the innovations of the a9 III trickle down into more affordable camera models in the future.
In conclusion, the Sony a9 III is a game-changer in the world of digital photography. Its full frame global shutter, advanced autofocus system, and impeccable video capabilities set a new standard for professional-grade cameras. While it may not be within reach for every photographer right now, its impact on the industry is undeniable, and I eagerly anticipate the future innovations it will inspire.
Please check your hyperbole at the door. You mean it will change videography (and then, only in some use cases). Photography is not going to change over autofocus improvements.
LOL! Between the review video and article, you surmised it's just about the AF. AF is not even the key feature of this camera. Try again, son.
yeah. Mr Tru, you missed the point dude...
Really didn't, thanks. A global shutter won't revolutionize photography (https://www.dpreview.com/learn/6348932189/what-is-global-shutter). You could more reasonably argue it will have a marked effect on videography.
About sync speed I have yet to see anyone comparing to HSS. Maybe HSS on this camera will perform much better? Will we be able to over power the sun with a much smaller flash?
Looks like these questions will not be answered so fast. Unless I purchase it myself. Or somebody who do testing and do have the camera, ask him self, what will I gain for typical outdoor flash photography?
I can't compare it to HSS because i don't know the new camera. But i find HSS very overrated. HSS doesn't come close to what i can do with the good old ND filters. For portraits at f1.8 or f1.4 on a bright day i can't afford the loss of power.
Is it the "Social Media" effect to create silly headlines? What is photography today anyway? If there is any device that has changed picture taking, it would be the cell phone. I really don't consider modern "cameras" to be photography. They are computerized, software generated, AI adapted devices that capture an image when we push a "trigger". Modern "cameras" bear so little in common with film era cameras that they can't be considered anything like a camera. In short order, "cameras" will be built into eye wear that focus based on eye movement and brain waves.
Can you be anymore disillusioned, misinformed, stuck in the past, and paranoid wannabe purist.
Cameras of the past are the way they were because of the technology back then. Similar to automobiles, they advance. By your ludicrous logic, vehicles of today can't be considered automobiles. Yes, I get it, the photography world has passed you by and you are bitter, angry, and mad-as-hell about it. But, c'mon, man.
Here, let me help you with definitions:
Wow, you got all that from a few lines of text. Trouble with these "comment" sections is that some people need to personalize these topics use inflammatory language to feel superior. Please just focus on the ideas. Have we ever met and somehow you've decided I'm bitter! You don't get it at all BTW. The "artist" who uses a pencil, a brush or similar, connects to a legacy of skill that is centuries old. The photographer who uses film, connects to a legacy that is over 100 years, which is why film remains popular. The digital camera has no legacy. Will it ever achieve the same feel in its own way as film? I doubt it. BTW Bro, this has nothing to do with "bitter" or whatever. Film is popular with all ages today.
FYI, Here's another source. What technology does it exclude!?
:camera
noun
cam·era ˈkam-rə ˈka-mə-rə
: a device that consists of a lightproof chamber with an aperture fitted with a lens and a shutter through which the image of an object is projected onto a surface for recording (as on a photosensitive film or an electronic sensor) or for translation into electrical impulses (as for television broadcast)
I mention you being bitter because of the disdain you have for digital and what it has done to film.
And, no, film is not popular. Not among the masses, anyway. It's only popular to the fringe minority. You know, like Pentax. It's on life support.
Digital will be around and the primary medium for decades to come. It's legacy, it's what killed film.
--- "Here's another source. What technology does it exclude!?"
Sigh, you and your selective reading. And, therein lies the problem, you only see what you want to see. I will help you, again. Pay attention to the highlights. See if you can connect the dots. I'll give you a gold star if you can.
"Killed film". I'm rolling with laughter. Bro, I don't know what your problem is, but please get a grip. Obviously you're a man without aesthetic or broad awareness. Bro, Leica, Linhof, Toyo and others continue to make film cameras. Classic cameras have never been more popular. Further read the quote below. This is just a small excerpt of long article that lists examples of the resurgence of film.
"With the rise of admiration for vintage aesthetics, the film market has grown exponentially. People of all ages are starting to get into analog film, including using it for more professional reasons, such as weddings and magazine shoots. With this growth, production companies have begun to thrive once again. Kodak, who filed for bankruptcy in 2012, has leaned fully into this development through the re-release of previously discontinued films. They have also introduced new film stocks like Kodak Gold 200 in a larger format, which previously had not been considered until the newer generation of photographers demanded it. Even production companies have started to use their film for TV and movies, such as the popular HBO show Euphoria, where the second season was filmed entirely with Kodak products."
Yo, bruh, they hype it up every couple of years, "making a comeback". Use your head, not your fragile emotions. That article is riddled with hyperbole. Notice they don't have actual numbers and actual examples. Well, except for one, second season of Euphoria. Out of hundreds of TV shows and movies, they have....wait for it...1 (one, uno, > 0 and < 2, one). LOL! Oh, no, digital, better watch out. :D
Whose demonstrating "selective reading" now? Please try, just try to open your mind. I know it's difficult for some. Don't worry if you make a mistake. You again completely missed the point, but that's OK. I'm sure you will have a clever comeback. You win.
--- "Whose demonstrating 'selective reading' now?"
Well, nothing has changed. That would be you.
So how far back do you insist we go for a "real" camera? Were AF 35mm cameras "real," or did they have too much tech? How about a manual focus Canon F1N, or was the built-in exposure meter too much tech? Maybe a Speed Graphic is your speed? Or glass plates? Thomas Brady would be happen to see you. (But if Brady had the option of a camera with AF, AE and all the features today's cameras offer you can be he would have jumped at it.
"Insist"? I suppose it depends on how much human input is desired to claim an image isn't just a product of AI or some other magical technology. Imagine a sporting event where a fleet of cameras was set up around a stadium with AI programmed robots that each were programmed to focus (literally) on a single player. One person monitored the robots from screens in a control room. The robots took a constant stream with the cameras and the AI did an initial selection based on predetermined criteria. Then the human made a final selection. Similarly with wilderness trigger cameras. is this photography? Who would take credit for the images? The robot or the human monitoring the robots or no one? Or the software engineer?
«They are computerized, software generated, AI adapted devices that capture an image when we push a "trigger".»
That sounds more like cellphone cameras than any DSC.
It’ll change nothing. They won’t even sell that many. I think I read somewhere that the DR is lacking - and that’s an important factor. Global shutter will, I’m sure, become the norm but people won’t want to sacrifice useful characteristics, that we’ve become used to,for the sake of it.
Of course global shutter will be used in more cameras eventually and the technology will get better but someone had to take the initiative and introduce it into a mirrorless camera. Being able to use silent electronic shutter without the rolling shutter effect or banding on indoor lighting will be huge.
For a relatively small group of action photographers. No one else will care all that much. We've managed to shoot sports and other action with "rolling shutter" effects for a hundred years, and gotten phenomenal images. A little bit of distortion really doesn't bother most people.
--- "For a relatively small group of action photographers. No one else will care all that much."
Not necessarily. The competitors (Canon, Nikon, etc) will care. For instance, not everyone needed superb Eye AF, and yet, Canon and Nikon had to step it up. If the brands didn't have it, they were looked at as the redheaded stepchild.
Additionally, for folks that frequently shoot wide open in the middle of the day out in the open, they can now go over 1/8000s shutter. And, for those that use flash, they can go well over 1/250s shutter without HSS for full flash power.
I have my grandfather's 16mm Bolex with a turret of three lenses. I don't believe it suffers from rolling shutter. The spring still works and the shutter fires. Imagine the character, the artistry, the challenge, the planning of using that camera in a professional setting, which is what it was designed for. No AF, no AE, no zoom, just human.
Nikon merged with RED.... DJI with Hasselblad... There is lot more to come.... Is DJI pocket 3 game changer?
I wonder who needed who in the mergers...
It doesn't matter really... The outcome will make all of us happy 😊 and I am canon shooter saying that
The problem is that you're trading dynamic range in a big way for the global shutter. Maybe eventually the technology will catch up, but right now it's a niche product for people who need speed more than anything else. And who are willing to put up with VERY short bursts, because Sony cheaped out on the buffer.
--- "The problem is that you're trading dynamic range in a big way for the global shutter"
That's what arm chair warriors say; or folks under exposing by 3+ stops. Expose properly, you won't have an issue. Let me know if you can spot the DR big problem in this short clip:
Watch at fullscreen at 4K:
(https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxTJeZv8qP49GnBG8cXI8H_k_Kbj_VzCur)
A fuller “full frame” global shutter, 40Mpx, 11.5-stop DR, 14-bit raw, DSC had existed over thirteen years ago. Flash sync at ¹/125 seconds, HSS, et al. It was called the 645D.
Sure, it did not do 8k video at 240p, that apparently every still photographer seem to demand in a DSC, (in fact, I do not think it did video at all), but it was a DSC after all, and not a cine camera.
It did, in fact, change still photography forever.
[EDIT] It was not the first DSC with a global shutter, (as almost all early DSCs had CCD sensors), and had an MSRP of over US$8,000.00. Currently available for about US$2,200.00.
Additionally, drawbacks to CCD sensors (versus CMOS sensors) brought us the necessary histogram ETTR mantra, which is now misunderstood and misused on CMOS sensors.[/EDIT]
I think you left out a few key specs. Pentax 645D:
1. Flash sync of 1/125 sec vs 1/80000 sec
2. Burst speed 1.1 fps (LOL) vs 120 fps
3. Max ISO 1600 (pathetic, even for its time) vs 25600
So, yeah, no, 645D did not change still photography forever. Too many real world compromises. Notice other brands did not follow suit. Heck, even they (Pentax) did not follow suit. It was released in 2010, and ended in 2010. It appears that was the last time they used a CCD sensor, which means they abandoned global shutter. As per usual, leave it to Sony to pick up where others have failed.
Nope. The article was about the global shutter, and that it will change photography. In this article, none of those specs were brought up as changing photography forever.
My argument is sound. The 645D had a global shutter, and the 645D changed photography forever, (Despite the fact that global shutters went out of popular use over time, the next iteration of the Pentax, 645Z, having a CMOS sensor instead).
I brought up the 645D since his argument was the first global shutter on an F-type —“full-frame”— camera, (and that is true, since most earlier CCD sensors were D-type —APS-C— or smaller).
I did mention the fact that it was not the first to have a global shutter, that pretty much all brands, including them, abandoned CCD technology, and why, (and that it changed photography so much that digital photographer are still pointless saying, “ETTL!”), so you just tried to beat me down by repeating what I already acknowledged.
Your argument that other brands did not follow suit is laughable, since three of the fantastic four —Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax, Rollieflex— are still around. None of the others ever did medium format, except the newcomer, Fujifilm, and pretty much all the APS-C started with CCD.
All four —Hasselblad, Fujifilm, Phase One, (Mamiya), & Pentax— had CCD cameras.
Yes, the 645D did change photography forever, (for various reasons), and it was no big deal!
That is my point! This “game changer” is not going to fundamentally change photography more than any other technology ever fundamentally changed photography.
P.s., the first global shutters were long before the digital revolution, and they still existed during the digital evolution. The 645D did have a flash sync speed as fast as its lenses.
After writing all that, you still couldn't explain how the 645D changed photography forever. Do you know why? Because it didn't. You being a history buff, one would think you have cited a few things. Even in the CCD era, it was at the bottom of the totem pole, like how it is now. What a way to change photography forever.
1. You did not ask me to.
2. It was not the point.
3. It is obvious to those who know.
4. It is largely irrelevant for the same reasons that this current, “change photography forever” thing is, (and that is a small part of the point).
[EDIT]
5. Not specific to the 645D, but I did point out how CCD sensors changed photography forever, (for some), who still insist on ETTR on their CMOS sensors, grossly underexposing their subjects.
[/EDIT]
--- "1. You did not ask me to."
Holy cow, what you are, 8? You brought it up and vehemently defend it. An adult would have made their case for it without being asked. You've written more words than the article, and yet, you have said nothing. Just random ramblings from a delusional eccentric fanboy clinging to the past. That's ok, though. I'm not going to press you because we all know you ain't got nothin'. You are just going to continue covering your ears and stomping your foot, "But, it did, it did, it did!!!"
--- "still insist on ETTR on their CMOS sensors, grossly underexposing their subjects."
You have your right confused with your left. ETTR stands for Expose to the Right of the histogram which typically has a brightening effect. It is almost impossible to "grossly underexpose" subjects utilizing this method. Not even with a Pentax, unless, their histogram is backwards. The only scenario that could happen is if you were shooting a subject heavily backlit directly into the sun. And, just like everything else, you would adapt accordingly.
Just for visuals that may help you. Below are more or less typical histograms. The top is ETTL, which would produce a darker image. The bottom is your beloved ETTR, which would produce a brighter image. Subjects are typically in the 1/2 to 3/4 (to the right). The reason ETTR is the guideline is subjects would be more likely "properly" exposed out of the box. You are less likely to have to heavily lift shadows/exposure which could introduce noise/grain.
It was not the point. What are you, eight?!? Only a child would insist on someone elaborating on a tangent.
The point was claiming that this global shutter will forever change photography, when there were many global shutters around since the down of modern photography (the magazine) and even before, is a ridiculous claim.
There is nothing to justify, clarify, or explain in my claim about the 645D. My statement was a point of ridicule about the statement that this new global shutter will change photography forever.
Besides, I did state how CCD sensors did change photography forever, (although as stated by me, not particular to the Pentax).
🤣😀🤣😀 🤣