Sony a9 III Global Shutter & The ISO 250 "Issue"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- With the announcement of the world's first global shutter full-frame sensor on the α9 III, some have called into question its base ISO of 250. Is this a dealbreaker for photographers considering this camera? Here's my take on this based primarily on my own hands-on use of the camera.
Here are some interesting videos to learn more about the global shutter technology found in this camera.
• Introducing Alpha 9 II...
Disclaimer: I am a Sony Artisan Of Imagery, meaning I am sponsored by Sony. This video, however, and the opinions shared do not represent the views of Sony or anyone else besides my own.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @miguelquilesjr
Follow Miguel Quiles!
Instagram: / miguelquilesjr
Facebook: / miguelquilesphotography
Twitter: / miguelquilesjr
Web: www.miguelquil...
Join the community
/ improveyourphotography
Sony Portrait Shooters! Share your images for a chance to be featured by hashtagging @sonyportraits!
As an Amazon Associate, I earn a small commission from qualifying purchases. Thank you for supporting my channel! - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Sony's own marketing materials admit--in the fine print--that the camera only syncs with a flash at 1/16000 when using lenses with an aperture brighter than f/1.8. While still impressive, that is where the ISO problem arises. That means that apples-to-apples, one needs to reduce the shutter speed by a stop and a half to reach the same exposure level of a camera shooting at ISO 100. That leaves the ISO 100 camera at 1/6000. For the higher-end Nikon cameras with a native ISO of 64, now we can reduce the shutter speed even further to around 1/4000 to achieve the same result. The problem for those non-global shutter cameras is they will need either ND filters or HSS strobes to sync with a flash under very sunny conditions. This is where the A9 III wins on paper--but in the real world, you may still be better off with a Sony A1 with its 1/400 mechanical shutter or the Nikon Z7 II, with it's 1/200 mechanical shutter and ISO 64. If the A9 III can meet or beat the dynamic range of the Sony A1 or the Nikon Z7 II at their native ISO values, I will pre-order it today, but the skeptic in me tells me there is a reason Sony has not gone public with the actual dynamic range specifications of the A9 III (something they don't typically hold back).
Like the original A9 that pioneered a stacked sensor, this camera is exciting for where the technology is going, but practically speaking, $6000 can also buy a really nice lens and an ND filter.
Dare I say, everyone being so bent over a base ISO, are living in the past?
It matterd far more back then, with the tech of the time. That tech hasn't sat still. Perhaps we need to "un-learn" what we think we know, and really examine how these newer sensors work in this modern time.
Lately been messing around with lower SS for wildlife, ( BIF), but that is a very low percentage of that type of shooting. Would rather see the better low light performance anyway. Out of the Sony line-up, A1 still would be the choice for me. With HSS I always wondered what the big deal was with lower sync speeds. Never had a problem & couldn’t say what the highest SS I shot at using HSS. Good to see such big advancements.
The only upside to global shutter is the ability to use flash at it's native power. Full power is full power, no matter what!
as you say, I use base ISO a lot for slow shutter stuff. so I'd prefer to have it as low as possible.
BUT 250 is low :) it's "one point tweintyfive" stops!
I can live with that. And anyway... I already possess filters.
No deal breaker.
The lower noise and higher megapixel is better for bird and wildlife photography especially during the best time of the day to photograph, toward sunrise and sunset. A lot of birders switched from the 20 megapixel to the 45 because of this. It also is less difficult to shoot in a full frame 45mpx than a crop sensor then crop in later. Higher iso also has less dynamic range up to this point. Will have to see this with the a9iii if this is the case.
… interesting, Jake von CVP seems to find a second Base in slog3 at ISO 6400 with the same noise like Base ISO 2000. Also the pictures Fro takes looks really good - so the IQ is maybe pretty good for a gs sensor.
With AI denoise in LightRoom and other software, high ISO noise is no longer an issue...
Cool camera, no question. Kudos to Sony to pave the way into new territory. BUT: it is first Gen technology and I at least will wait until this technology has matured.
Regarding your argument regarding ISO: mirrorless wasn’t the reason for better ISO it was just technological progression in sensor development that also led to better ISO performance with DSLRs. I think that ISO 64 or lower has great value for landscape photographers. Not so much for portrait photographers as you say.
Sony has had GS sensors for several years for technical and scientific use, you can see in the catalog that they are at version 3 or even 4
I do landscape mostly and I like to shoot at ISO 50.. I use a GFX 100 on a tripod
What is that beautiful hand mic you're using?
It's a Sony mic. I'll see if I can get the link for it. I love it!
The pro en cont list is longsr , the dynamic range i not realy top, and IQ of a1 compared with the a9 iii has a clear winner.. Also you might feel happy with 24 Mp for me it is useless, I go for 45/50or 61 MP, with good dynamic range. The flash is someting I like to avoid to a minimum, daylight sometimes suported by fill -in flash is nice. (For studio work it is a different story). So depending on your use you will decide, for me the clear winner is the A1. But the next generation global shutter will be most likely a other story. The A9 III is not a mature product
The A1 is definitely a beast and overall has more appealing features for the masses. The a9III is more niche. I can tell you having used both cameras that there are certain situations where the speed of the a9III would get me an image that the A1 would likely have missed.
I don’t disagree, but the a1 will give you many situation the a9 III can not match. But even if i could buy both I should not consider the A9 III, basis my personal use and way of working, so i keep my old pony the a1 😊. Buth this is me, so feel free to see it different, for you the A9 III can be the right choice.These cameras are very different, maybe I shouldn't compare them.
I think that α9 III's global shutter is oversold, a promotional ploy still halfbaked. For now, α9 III's burst capture is capped at 1/16 000 sec shutter speed, not even the 1/32 000 sec of α9 and α9 II. Yes, a 1/80 000 sec single shot can be useful, but for shooting action? And exposure that brief complicates flash use, as typical flash duration is far longer. Versus the global shutter, nearly every other new feature-even the new custom button, fewer than should've been added-is more important, I think.
By a sensor upgrade as previously expected, the α9 series could have acquired dual-gain architecture, ISO invariance, higher resolution, _e.g.,_ 36 MP, and flash sync with electronic shutter, while a faster rolling shutter would have rendered further negligible the two problems that a global shutter eliminates. Meanwhile, although the new CF express protocol, 4.0, doubling type A's speed limit to 2 GB/sec, was announced recently, in September 2023, camera engineers must've known it was coming. So why not include that, even if by delaying α9 III some?
If you're not going to get a camera of this magnitude over a base ISO of 250, you probably shouldn't be in photography.
Yes. For 6000 dollar, it is.
Let the global shutter tech get better. And cheaper.
The A9III is better for 'edge case' photography, that few people actually do. Yes, the global shutter will become the norm in next decade, but today's cameras will still be effective then.
😯👏👏👏
just look at the beanie hes wearing, to base any purchasing decision on one of these "salesmen" you need to be a dumb Sony fanboy
Never said anything about buying decisions, that's up to the viewer. This camera, like all cameras, isn't for everyone. But for the ones that it's made for, it's going to be awesome.
@@MiguelQuilesJr I agree, probably gonna be even "greater" than my A1 with 2 year old firmware, that has problems focusing in most wildlife situations and misses features like pre-release etc, that even much cheaper cameras have. What I do not agree with is unrelenting "praise the Lord" err... Sony, instead of getting to the bottom and asking them for a an answer why, instead of suggesting workarounds like possibly replacing filters, changing the technique, etc. The technology sure may be great and has potential, but Sony implementation may as well again leave so much to desire as with their other cameras, that have issues most Sony boys do NOT WANT to talk about. I have learned to watch and interpret videos like this one but many people have not, some have noted the issues like below "as someone who shoots ISO 50 ALL THE TIME... im not worried about noise ... but its a 2+ stop difference... and that adds up to more flash power needed for the higher shutter speeds..." these are the things YOU should talk about
And yes, I have pre-ordered this one but I will wait until I get and test it.
@@compsourcegoogle1284 A few things here. 1. The A1 is nearly 3 years old at this point. People have and continue to use the camera to shoot all sorts of things. If you're having issues, perhaps its a technique gap on your end, or maybe there is something wrong with it that requires service. Blaming the camera when people have been able to do so much with far lesser cameras is silly (in my opinion). The A1 has features that were far ahead of it's time, but of course as new cameras come out with features such as an AI processor, you're going to see features that may not trickle down and some features that the A1 has that others will never get (like shooting flash at 1/400 sync, 50 megapixels at 30fps, etc). Do you go to your car dealer the year after a new model is realeased complaining about stuff like this? No. You buy the best you can get at the time it's available. 2. Every release will leave "so much to be desired". A company can make the perfect camera (which will never happen) and someone will say "It's great, but I wish they had it in white" or some other such complaint. It's human nature to always want more/different. I personally don't feel the need to talk about it because it's a ridiculous endeavour. There will always be something more that people will want, but the reality is that what we have today trumps most of what's ever been available. We buy the things that are best when they are available to us, not in anticipation of whats coming 3 years later. In that case, we'd never buy anything. 3. ISO 50 isn't the native base ISO on any modern Canon (which is what Sal uses, the person who made the comment). If we're comparing extended vs extended ISO it's not 2+ stops were talking about here (50 vs 125). The situations where he would use ISO 50 is almost exclusively when he's using flash, and that dark base exposure can be achieved in a way that a Canon R5 simply can't do, by offering a higher shutter speed sync with flash. That was the point of my video, we're able to do something that has never been able to be done where we can use a flash at full power (if needed) at crazy shutter speeds. The flashes I own personally (Profoto D2 1000 watt) have more than enough power (and flash duration) to make the same kind of images at BASE ISO with a higher shutter speed, not EXTENDED ISOs of 50 or less. 4. Most importantly, I talk about what I want to on this channel. While I take respectful requests to cover various topics, I don't read scripts from Sony or anyone else. They have never and would never ask me to do that. I've been a committed Sony user for nearly a decade now by choice. If you want to be in an echo chamber of someone stoking the flames of being a hater of everything, I'm not your guy and this probably won't be the channel for you . If you want to see someone produce regardless of the gear in their hands, then welcome, you're in the right place.
those "high ISO = grain, anything over 100 is unusable" comes from oldschool photogs who shot 99% of their career with a CCD sensor. now with PureRAW AI i have shot in ISO 9000 ss 1/50th to get a shot and totally recovered it. every criticism comes from people who only takes pictures of their keyboards.
It's come from analogue times when higher iso= bigger lightsensitive molecules= bigger grain
I love high grain I'll take that all day. I shoot at 1200 the lowest
great video... as someone who shoots ISO 50 ALL THE TIME... im not worried about noise ... but its a 2+ stop difference... and that adds up to more flash power needed for the higher shutter speeds. its not insignificant and not something that can be ignored. so there are a lot of things needed - flash duration, etc. i dont doubt at all this is an amazing feat... putting it to practical application is where the proof is. i truly look forward to seeing the results. how will this handle f1.4 at 1/20,000 sec? granted all this right now is months before anyone will really get to put it to that test, but i look forward to it. NOW... all that being said... its not just about "flash" per se. to imply there is no difference in the look of an image shot at 1/100th of a sec vs 1/8,000 of a sec is no accurate. granted that 2+ stop difference is not driving you from 1/100 to 1/8,000 sec, but my point is... there is def a difference in the look of the image. i look forward to you testing this and showcasing it. its an exciting time for the industry without a doubt as we all know... these features will creep into all cameras as time moves on... :)
Based on the sensor technology, it shouldn't require more flash power. With a mechanical focal plane shutter the sync speed is around 1/250s and the duration the whole sensor is exposed is around 1/500s. Flash strobe duration is typically 1/800s at full power and shorter than 1/2000s at half power. Suppose with A7IV one shoots at ISO 100, 1/250s, full flash power, then with A9III one can shoot at ISO 250, 1/640s, 1/2 -0.3 EV flash power, to get the same result. So it actually reduces the flash power needed. The reduction would be much more pronounced if A7iv needed high-speed sync. One potential issue with flash, though, is that some may not trigger with a precise enough delay especially if radio is involved.
Very good post Sal
It's not HSS where flash power is reduced. if your flash is fast enough it doesn't matter.
A 4 stop solid ND? Would that not work
ISO 50 is extended and a9III's extended ISO goes to 125, so it's still a 1.3 stops difference.
This is a sports or wildlife camera, so when was the last time you needed to use ISO 100? For sports, I usually have to use higher ISO, so it's not a problem for me and probably for most of this type of photographers. For me, however, Mpx is a bit lacking because I really like taking crop photos
As I am certain you are aware, it's not the fact that the camera has 250 min Iso but that this may be a clue to a reduced dynamic range. Lower dynamic range is something that other global shutter sensors have had issues with, so it's not knocking Sony to be a little curious about that.
I personal think that it is likely the A9iii will have a slightly lower dynamic range but I also don't think it maters at all for the sports pro that it's aimed at.
Sony have done a fantastic thing bringing this technology to our cameras and they deserve our praise.
If the loss of dynamic range is slight for what this camera can do, the dynamic range will still be great. So I don't know why people are b*tching about this.
0:19
👀👀😁
This camera is not for potrait photographers but more to sports and action photographers whose pictures will be used for news.
There is no perfect camera...but the Sony A9 III solves a lot of the limitations, criticisms, impeding our creative passion in photography and videography...and still people complain. We are so spoiled.
Eversince I moved to Sony I never complain about noise, I even add noise or film grain in LR to make photos look like those photos in my old F1 book photos taken in the 70's 80's 90's the classic film look to it or some old National Geographic magazines.
Back then in the film SLR era they had so many limitations...oh no touch screen menu, no Eye AF, No AF at all, a roll of film the list goes on and yet there are some amazing photography in those days.
You maybe are not a sport photographer, because you forgot that lower iso are needed for panning! 250iso is a cons.
I don’t know if iso noise will be similar or worst rather than a9ii, I will wait for lab tests, anyway I think that some people will like the sync feature, vodeomaker will like the no rs in video, but a lot of sport photographers doesn’t need 1/8000 sync or more, doesn’t have problem of deformation with an A1, but maybe they need low iso, GD, low noise…
And a RS Stacked sensor are less problematic rather than a GS to get FPS, GD, low iso noise…..so personally I would have preferred a sensor RS Stkd, faster than A1 (so sync even better than A1), less noise, more dr, fast fps (120 are a lot)…and so on.
In that case (GS) the camera have some plus (sync, no banding) and some cons (gd and maybe iso noise) vs a9ii/a1 technology.
In the other case, i would have only plus…
That’s obviously for my point of view, if you use a lot of flash…maybe you will prefer this camera…
The benefits of the A9 III for flash and sports photography are clear. For things like landscapes, much less so. But I'm curious about high ISO performance. So far, I've found the best high ISO performance offered by any Sony sensor came out of the A7R III. The A7R III has a dual gain sensor, with ISO 100 as its base ISO and ISO 640 is when its dual gain kicks in. The A9 III doesn't have a dual gain sensor, and its base ISO is 250. I expect it to be noisier than the A7R III at higher ISOs. It doesn't invalidate the use cases for the A9 III or the crazy innovation at its core. It looks like an amazing camera and I'm excited to see it thoroughly tested. But again, there is always advantages and disadvantages to everything. I believe that Sony's engineers were successful at mitigating the disadvantages to a degree that makes them more or less irrelevant in the camera's intended use cases, and that its benefits matter more. But I don't think that this new sensor will quite match Sony's best sensors in either dynamic range and high ISO performance. It will make up for it in other ways. Pros and cons.
We have to see real tests of dynamic range and noise. A9III in video mode has a ISO 2000 as standard. GS is a new sensor, we have to wait how it behaves. Also Canon announce was they don't use GS in new cameras
Love the performance of my a7RIII. It lacks some bells and whistles of newer cameras but I’m not lacking with it at all. 💪📸
@wandererstraining
You should make a video on the a7RIII
@@dirtysouthtiger I'd like for someone who's already a photography TH-camr to do it, actually! They'd have a better reach than me. Plus, I haven't had time to make more videos for a couple of years, I've been too busy. 🥲
Honest im down for grain and imperfection, i honestly dont like how everything is clinically sharp. Ive been adapting old lenses and having fun which is photography as an art is all about
Great perspective, and I love where Sony is pushing! For context, I'm an action and adventure sports photographer. And reasonably frequently, I'll want to drag my shutter for motion blur on the fly; that's where I'll hit issues shooting a higher native ISO, and the only time it would bug me more consistently. Stopping to break out and installing a VND is not a practical solution in these scenarios. A few things give me pause, but one thing is for sure: this camera is a BIG step in the right direction and will be amazing!
don’t some Sony cameras have a built in ND option at the sensor? Maybe they could add that in the Sony a9iv
F 1.8 and low is only 1/16000s + ISO 250 Full power of AD600 is 1/220s :)
Thank you for the video. It must be human nature for some to always look for the negative issue. Thank you for being positive. I don't shoot with Sony gear but when I saw this camera, I thought, "Gee, I hope my camera maker gets this tech real soon". Incredible tech, fabulous camera. Thank you.
That's what I immediately thought about Canon but who knows how long they'll take to incorporate the global shutter lol.
I use ISO 200-8000 with my Olympus and everything is great.
Iso being this high means dynamic range suffers. You got the wrong end of the stick
Hello, i think you get it wrong. People are not worry about grain on iso 250, bu that base iso is 250, it looks that we will have much lower dynamic range, also, max 25600 iso shows, that iso range is not very wide, it shows, that sensor can't handle high iso well, we can have grain and color cast problem. And baout flshes, 1/80000 is great, but most flashes on high power can't have even 1/0000 flash duration. I have one godox flash, that's on 1/1 power flash duration is 1/220. Oh, and looks that this sensor hasnt dual base iso. For video in Log, it's base iso is 2000.
I dont care about non of that stuff. I only care about sooc good color science thats not horrible to work with in post.
I like the flexibility to shoot landscapes or seascapes at 50 ISO. But I reckon the A9III is not geared for those subjects but for fast action as sports and wildlife. I can’t wait to get my hands on that 300mm f2.8 lens!
This camera is for the Olympics in 2024...high speed, high FR and I'm sure other pro photographers will carry and A7R V or A1 if they want to have high IQ or better dynamic range. Like the Associated Press they chose Sony to be their camera supplier so they'll bring all the great camera bodies.
I’ve been shooting since 2003 and I remember cameras of those times having base ISO similar to the a9III and they produced clean images way back then. So why would ppl think that a camera in 2024 can’t produce a clean image at that ISO. I blame these fairly new photographers that weren’t around when cameras couldn’t go any lower than that, and extended ISO wasn’t a thing.
It's a number game, an endless gladiator war for marketing purposes.
The artists themselves mostly not bothered with such a thing unless some changes are needed like video and such.
Leave them alone because the art itself cannot be appreciated when such agony nailed in their heart.
I'm waiting to see those 1/80000 images.
I am more worried about t.1 duration of the flash given that a faster shutter speed must be used with ISO250. Perhaps an ND is necessary.
You can adjust the flash sync settings in camera to match the flash duration. Tested it with Godox and Stella lights so far. It'll be nice if it will be able to sync up automatically at some point.
Oh you got to test it,@@MiguelQuilesJr ?? How did it do at full power? I'm dying to try it out because, while I've used leaf shutters, I don't know how Sony's sync settings impact it.
Nobody is hyping the detractions. They're just offering some common sense in the face of all the hype Sony is pushing about this camera. The general consensus so far appears to be that there's a penalty in DR and high ISO performance. Not surprising given the ISO specs, which are relatively narrow for a 24MP sensor.
And nobody needs a base ISO of below 250 any more than anybody needs to shoot 120fps, I suppose. But if ultimate image quality outcomes are the most important metric, this is probably not the FF camera to be looking at. The best all-rounder in FF right now is the Nikon Z8, hands down. High resolution plus a 4ms stacked sensor, which can handle the vast vast majority of action out there with aplomb.
But "global shutter" makes for great headlines, I'll grant you that.
DR and noise performance of the Z8 is worse than on the A9III at ISO above 800.
@@renestaempfli1071 Nope.
dynamic range low @ iso 250
I guess it depends what and how you shoot. As a wildlife photographer I couldn't care less, I mostly shoot at dawn or dusk, and when shooting fast moving subjects in dark forest for example, my ISO will regularly be at 6400, 10000 etc. Actually, about 80% of my images are between ISO 1600 and 12800, so base ISO of 250 is a non issue in my case. What I care most about is high ISO, does sensor hold decent dynamic range throughout the high ISO etc.
Nicely pointed out, we are so spoiled these days with camera tech yet people still complain. The limiting factors are getting smaller and smaller with new Sony cam and tech they bring yet people are getting more dumb relying too much on tech instead of going out there and shoot.
High ISO was never an issue with me since moving to Sony in 2015 I'm even happy to soon in high ISO when I used to have the original A7S the images were so clean in low light compared to my A7R II back then, now my lowly A7 III shoots just as well in low light situtations.
I use low ISO for low noise and/or long exposures without ND. For flash use I generally use higher ISO to get more range. Lots of cameras, including many early dSLRs like D100, D70 etc had ISO 200 as base ISO with crop sensors and Olympus has used ISO 200 as base even with MFT-sensors. I don't see any reason - except that GS introduce an unknown factor - why ISO 250 shouldn't give low enough noise with FF sensor in 2023, but we'll get test of FR and noise soon enough. ISO 250 as base is a disadvantage of course for anyone who want low ISO for long exposures, but they are hardly the target for a camera like this.
Higher iso does lower detail/definition. In most situations, the difference between 100 and 250 iso is not noticeable.
You know what the funny thing is? People make it sound like every DSLR produces noisy images once you passed ISO 200. I shoot with a dinosaur, the Canon EOS 60D crop sensor DSLR, and my images are practically noiseless at ISO 800 but have shot ISO 1600 with somewhat acceptable noise levels - easily remedied by slight noise reduction - so I don't know what people go on about with most modern DSLR's and ISO. Yes, mirrorless is generally way better at ISO than most DSLR's but come on.....ISO 400 is nothing for most modern DSLR's after the early 2000's (and my Canon 60D was released in 2010).
Why did you avoid the Dynamic Range issue. This is what is the real reason people are concerned about the base 250 ISO number. I know that you are smart and experienced enough to understand the issue. Sony is also avoiding providing this number. They provide it for all of their other cameras. This justifiably raises eyebrows in my opinion. Please be straight with us. We deserve it and expect it from our trusted sources like you. I am a fan of both your work, and Sony cameras.
I appreciate the comment. I am not avoiding the dynamic range conversation. At the moment there is no way to open the raw files coming from this camera, so testing this becomes problematic. I used the camera in low light situations and got great results. Knowing Sony, dynamic range is going to be the last thing people should worry about.
@@MiguelQuilesJr Thanks for your thoughts on this. Let's hope you are correct that Sony has this handled. I just find it odd that they don't reveal numbers with this release.
Some youtuber noticed that it has dual base ISO in video. For SLog3 it's 2,000 and 6,400 ISO which is great! Hope Sony gives you early access to make full preview of the camera.
It’s not a dual ISO camera. Sony just applies noise reduction at 6400. Which is why they do not state it is dual ISO, whereas on the FX6 Sony advertise it as having dual ISO.
@@angryrabbitproductions1690 Neither A7S III is advertise as having dual native ISO, nor A7iv, nor A7Rv, A1 etc and still have it. If it was a "simple" noise reduction at 6,400 then why other brands can't (or let's say non-Sony sensor brands/cameras)? The channel is CVP, search "CVP a9 III".
A7SIII and FX3 have the same sensor as FX6, but they don't advertise the dual gain sensor either@@angryrabbitproductions1690
A7SIII and FX3 have the same sensor as FX6, but they don't advertise the dual gain sensor either@@angryrabbitproductions1690
It will be most annoying when you need moderately slower shutter speeds like video and shutter drags. When you need to be at 1/60 or 1/120 and you hit base iso and need to move to add an ND.
I do agree that people that pixel peep at ISO250 will be silly for any image quality other than dynamic range and even that is overblown.
For a long time the base iso on Nikon DSLR’s was 200 and no one had an issue with it …
I wouldn’t care about the iso hell I have shot my A7Rv at over 20000 iso and it’s been fine (when not trying to lift shadows) but iso aside what I’m curious about is does this 1/16000 shutter syncing with a flash effect the flash power like it would in HSS or because it’s syncing would it allow the full power of the flash that would be the game changer. I’ll probably wait for the A7r6 to have this tech I don’t know if I could go back to 24 megapixels.
Ive been a professional fashion/portrait photographer for nearly 20 years. I see this camera as bragging rights. I see nothing useful for real world shooting. This will be a camera for the 1%. Cool niche camera for enthusiasts with money to burn.
I used the camera for about two hours and my concern is iso above 6000 and it’s really noisy and that’s the only flow that I have seen so far
I don't understand why is this even a topic of discussion. No One is going to be a $6,000 24 Megapixel camera in 2024 to shoot landscapes/long exposures where Low ISO is crucial. This is a SPORTS camera, that's it.
And here I am thinking some people criticize Sony for being too sharp, too digital.. well then have some noise, cheers.
Dude, modern cameras are just really good nowadays. I see dxomark scores for cameras from a7c back in 2020 having such close scores with the latest mid-high end cameras, sometimes better. Even some new cameras still can't beat the a7r III even the II dynamic range and ISO performance. Man.
Come one now Miguel! You KNOW very well that almost all flash systems BLEED out power at such high shutter speeds. What's the advantage of 'no sync' then? ISO 250 already forces you to stay at higher shutter speeds to begin with... and seriously compromises your ability to control contrast in the scene.
It could be the Sony Global Shutter Readout affect the Base ISO in terms of circuitry. Thank you so much for sharing.
There's also virtually "no need" to shoot anything at 1/80000 of a second.. this new feature seem to be very veeeeeryyy niche in photography.. like if you're gonna take pictures of bullets mid air or something like that.. now the 120 frames in raw it's nice.. altho only 24mp
Global shutter biggest real world advantages are probably on the video capabilities
I will buy Leica M3 or other leica in that price range and most not impress with latest greatest features. Even 10fps in Sony a7 IV got so annoy or headache to select good images from others in quick or busy times and in 120fps makes gigantic headaches for selecting best photos for clients. There is no times curling images for best photos and literally I got annoyed selecting photos from 10fps. 3fps is more than enough. Non decent camera’s win top photos competition like legendary photographer taken in 1930 even before. Look popular portrait images taken in 1940s. They didn’t shot this latest feature camera. Camera is just tool and only important is how to use it. If you got same tool of plumber, electrician or car you can’t do best like professional do.
Question is this the end of convention flash ? Jake Hicks was showing the flash light curve vs a rotolight flash, the conventional flash is an explosion whilst rotolight is on/off - but with 1/80,000 second can a conventional flash even produce a valid powerful result in such a short time period, and can it produce 120 flash in sync in a second? We know rotolight can do this, in theory.
I shoot motorsport, and shoot at slow shutter speeds to give blur both to rotating wheels and the background. I will pan a car at 1/60 sec and below and want as wide a aperture as possible In bright daylight to obtain this, and to reduce DOF of the background, at 100 iso I may be at f22 and smaller. I have to use nd8 filters to get down to f11. My current camera can shoot at a native iso of 64 with a low setting of 32 iso that is 2 stops slower than this global shutter which has a low setting of 125 iso, I talk to a lot of motorsport photographers and we will all shoot at slower shutter speeds, for us a fast shutter speed may be 1/250-1/500 sec when cars are approaching head on, any faster and the car may appear to be parked on the tarmac. This technology is great and I am sure that next generation sensors will be able to reduce this low iso setting, Aviation photographers also shoot prop aircraft at slow shutter speeds to get the prop's blurred.
If dynamic range and lower ISO is your game, then α9 III is not for you - simple. α9 series was made for photojournalist, sports and action photographers who prefers higher shutter speeds.
There is no dual gain sensor in that camera.. So that is most likely the main reason native iso is 250 and not 100 or 64. It is camera for sports. We have seen this before in other sport cameras in the past. Native iso is the cleanest with the largest dynamic range camera can produce... Comparing native iso 250 to camera with native iso 64 or 100 is like comparing racing car to vehicle for daily use... Makes no sense 😉
Can someone tell me if there’s even a mechanical shutter at all?? If not, does that mean there isn’t anything such as “shutter life” on the A9iii???
But it's a sports camera. Why would any one want to do anything that requires lower base ISO if you can do it for cheaper with a proper tool?
The question is how much dynamic range can the sensor capture at ISO 250, exposure is no issue with the faster shutter speeds.
A9 series are for sports not for people who only take photos of test screens.
ISO 250 is plenty fine with stadium lights.
ooh so there is a catch :-p good to know before you invest the money lol but neat anyways. maybe the a9 IV will fix it!
I don't see the A9 III being for wildlife photographers due to the resolution of the sensor. It limits your ability to crop in. And yes I know, AI based software can mitigate this, but higher MP would give you more capability. You simply can't force a wild animal to comply with your need for them to be close. But, sports photographers will be all over this bad boy.
Hmm, I must be the exception to the rule. I shoot wildlife and the pre-capture and 120fps RAW with continuous autofocus is something I want. I normally shoot between iso640 and iso6400 so don't see any problem with that. 24mp is plenty as long as you can fill the frame, and for situations where more reach is required I will use the A1. But even at 30fps you miss many fast action 'moments'.
A camera is just a tool. A brilliant photographer will choose the right tool for right applications. unless you are not.
Cant see the issue with ISO as sony has an invariance upto ISO 640. I cant see any noise that cant be dealt with within that range.
Didn’t see anyone else mention it but coming from the Northrups review it seems overpowering the sun is something the A1 is better at
I think this is a bomber camera for sports photography. Until we get some test data, not sure it's a all-around great choice for nature photography. Nature photographers like low ISO's because they provide more dynamic range (critical to us). Personally, I do both nature and sports. Before I spend $6,000 I'd like to see whether it generates the same 15 stops of dynamic range. Also is this new sensor as ISO invariant as Sony's other sensors? Armed with that info, buyers will be able to make smarter decisions.
So what camera is you use currently that has 15 stops dynamic range ? 🤣🤣🤣
All they need to do now is update their flashes which are dated, especially in regards to battery.
I saw compare iso 250 and 50 with the other camera, which is much cleaner.
I don t know what this debate is for … 7k€ is too much for me anyway :)
we're worried about the noise and dynamic range bud. i'll wait till i see the raw files.
Camera's great but that curly haired goddess was the click bait😂
With modern ISO-invariant sensors, ISO just signifies how much highlights are clipped, while the rest of the information of the image does not depend on ISO. With the exception of dual base ISO, which means that at some point both the highlights are clipped and the noise floor is cleaned. This means that with all other things being equal, the camera with base ISO 250 will have in optimal light 1 and 1/3 of a stop less dynamic range than a camera with ISO 100, while high ISO performance in poor light may be identical. This may not be a very important trade-off, but something to be aware of
00:12 I spy with my little eye... A Jared! Fro and all 😁
As for the base ISO, who cares... 250 is a bit weird, sure but I'm at around 800 most of the time anyway. And now that we are getting into the cold and darker season I'm most likely gonna be at a constant 3.200. Dynamic range in the field will be interesting though but I don't think this is a camera for landscape photographers anyway.
The issue that I see with the a9 III is that it just seems like a flex from Sony. They are now the first with a 35mm sensor camera that uses a global shutter. Nice...? 🤷♂
But when you look at the specs sheet, basically everything on it needs a big fat asterisk next to it.
120fps RAW! But the buffer is full within two seconds at best and the camera needs about a minute to clear the buffer...
1/80.000s! But you only get full AF up to 1/16.000s AND at f/1.8 or larger...
Also, prior to this announcement I didn't even know that Sony is limiting the framerate to 15fps when you use third-party lenses? That seems very odd to me.
The future do be looking bright though! This *is* a step in the right direction. This camera though? It's like one of those extremely fancy prototypes you see at a car show that never make it to market, only that Sony actually does plan to sell it 😁
Honestly sounds like keyboard Warriors. This is something discussed in like 2012.
Sounds like it’s a jump in tech that will change the way cameras are made from here on out.
So, tell me which flash would you use to work with a shutter speed of 1/80000 of a second?
Check out my latest video. I've also used the Profoto D2 and it's worked just fine.
Hi Miguel, really curious with your camera bag. Mind to share what is that? Thank you
I was using this one, love it! amzn.to/3R5SRiz
This or the mighty Leica q3,
The problem here is that Miguel doesn't appear to be a landscape photographer. So, for him and others like him, a base of ISO 500 wouldn't be an issue either. It's easy to dismiss another's viewpoint when you never ever see the validity of that viewpoint. For me, it's a deal-breaker. For him, it's a non-issue.
Base ISO isn't 500, it's 250. I'm not dismissing it, just asking the community for their perspective. Why exactly would ISO 250 as a base be a dealbreaker for you?
@@MiguelQuilesJr I'm aware of its base ISO. I was suggesting that you and others like you who aren't Landscape photographers could care less about base ISO, but that's because you don't use it normally. Most people who do anything except Landscape photography, studio work, or macro photography typically crank up their ISO like it's part of their workflow to get exposure correct, whereas other photographers such as those I've suggested depend on base ISO, not just for light control but for the maximum amount of dynamic range. And I'm sure that you would enjoy the benefits of maximum dynamic range as well, it's just that you're more than willing to throw that out the window in order to get the shot *you* need for *your* type of photography, which requires fast-glass and high-ISO values. I don't even own a f/2.8 lens and haven't for years.
But hey, you still got me to watch your video with the head-line you made suggesting it wasn't really an "issue".
And got me to return by replying as well. I might even return to see more of your youtube work because you weren't boring or stupid. It was interesting. You were interesting.
I think what Sony did with the a9III is practically a miracle. And the ISO trade-off is going to be worth it for the primary users of the camera. And in the future, I'm sure that they won't need to do that or reduce the resolution. But for a wedding photographer, a sports photographer, wildlife shooter (a little less, but still the camera's other attributes outweigh the ISO trade-off), and for other forms of photography, most people won't care. But for some photographers, it's just a valid reason not to buy this camera.
Why on earth would anyone even consider the a9iii for landscape photography ?
We all expect that this camera will not be the best in image quality. Surprised that Sony added 120 fps RAW ability. But for sports in will be a deal maker. I shoot soccer at 14 fps, and VERY often have to clone in the soccer ball from one of the adjacent frames to the "peak of action". And yes, I do get rolling shutter with a DSLR mechanical shutter. Plenty example of soccer player mysteriously having "midget" feet when the are in kicking up at the ball. I am still wrapping my head around the sync flash at any shutter speed, but I don't think it will be the "free" lunch that I was hoping. Certainly there will be issues shooting flash at 1/8000th f1.4 during mid daylight. And Sony pricing this at 6K, I think Sony is budgeting this camera as part of their marketing campaign to seriously grab market share from the Canon 1D series. BTW, it was nice to see you in person during the Sony even at Samy's Camera in LA recently.
I shoot also at 100.000 ISO, since the grain noise is not so red, but even at iso200k shots are great for social networks.
If the hi iso noise is small and better processed, it can be even better, no need to compare 10y old tech to new one.
Tho, I don't know exactly how new one performs, looking at how hi noise and color is processed in latest cameras, it looks quite hopeful that it will perform good enough for those.
Anyway, this is not rolling shutter 1/30k but global 1/80k, basically moving from mechanical limit of 1/8k its 10x jump.
Even bigger for video, going from about 1/500 at max to ?k, not sure what's the max shutter in video, but if it's similar to 1/80k for stills, it's like 160x jump.
Let that sink in?
one other use of asa (iso) 100 is, as an architecture or car\boat shooter; the high gain does mean GLARE!, we use 100 iso to make this glare a bright highlight with which we can USE, not have to chuck it away in post as overexposure, or something which destroys an image, as sometimes, like in portraiture this accent light does give a feel to the image.
Well, if Canon or other comes out with Global shutter with 100 native ISO then this camera will become a dinosaur quickly. Unless it offers something the competition does not offer. Canon R5 does not work with flash using electronic shutter, so that is a problem for Canon. It will be interesting to see how this comes along, but in reality, this is a nice feature but people are using non global shutter cameras and getting good images for stills. Video, this would be much more desirable to eliminate rolling shutter, but people are shooting now and dealing with rolling shutter. So it is a nice feature, but I think people are making a big deal of it and if it introduces downside like a 250 ISO sill image shooters may not switch. It would seem video shooter would like this feature much more. I guess time will tell if it is an issue or if another manufacture will have global shutter and 100 native ISO.
Awesome video about the Flash Sync for the A9iii. I shot with a Global Shutter Minolta Dimage A1 so I get what your talking about! Also I'm digging the Minolta 70th Anniversary poster on your wall!
It will be 100. What you tested was a pre production model
It was a pre-production model, however, ISO will be 250, not 100. It's already been published on their site.
Does that 24mp create issue of any kind in photo or video ?
None whatsoever. 24mp is a sweet spot for a lot of different digital cameras.
Can't miss the Fro.
The reason people are calling out the fact that the base ISO is higher on the A9III is because Sony said they “solved” the noise/dynamic range issues that generally plague global shutter sensors. However, if this is the case why did they need to raise the base ISO? Clearly it was too noisy.
Fun fact: The base ISO for video in SLog 3 is 2000 ISO. Hmmm?
look at the difference between leica monochrome and standard Ms - they're not the same and the higher iso on the monochrome isn't because its noisy - its because it doesn't have a bayer filter and produces cleaner images.
now it might very well have a lower dynamic range, but you'd have to be pretty confident in your product to deliver where it counts when introducing next generation tech or you give your competitors a free shot at you.
it won't be too noisy because its an action camera and this isn't 2005. but it will be interesting to see where the limitations of the tech are. but in practicality no camera on the market today isn't good enough to do a job its made to do. you want to post online? how many mp do you need? you want to print? you're stuck with adobe rgb levels of dynamic range and colour.
so much wailing and gnashing of teeth from a new tech everyone has been waiting forever for
I thought the base iso for slog3 was 800
iso 100 > iso 250 = iso 800>iso2000 @@RyanREAX
@@MRBuDWiZe depends on the camera.. a7s3 is dual iso at 12,800
Looking at my fast action birds-in-flight photos, not a single frame was anywhere near iso 250. All of them are iso 500 and above.
If people need ISO 50 they can buy an a7RV. a9III is an action cam and not made for landscapes.
Sound like a great camera. Glad to see some of the same models I have seen over the years. Wish Sony and you great success this fall and next year.
Would it be better if the a9III could go lower than ISO 250? Sure.
Is it a deal breaker, in particular for its use case which is sport photography? Not at all.
Great video thanks
For Photogrammetry , I use a camera with native ISO of between 100-200 because you need the lowest noise possible when using it for Photogrammetry.
what about pannings ??
I really don’t see the A9 as a landscape or portrait camera (low resolution). Can it do it yes. It was really designed as a sports camera. So the high base ISO doesn’t really matter.