Sony Electronics Releases the Alpha 9 III; the World’s First Full-Frame Camera with a Global Shutter Systemi

[snapshot]

> you can use mono lights, it doesn't matter if the flash pulse is greater than 1/80000, it just can't be less.
if the discussion is about Matt Granger, i understood the question to be what sort of lighting system could replicate the photos taken with a global shutter on any other camera. If you set your shutter speed to 1/200 and use the flash pulse to the stop the motion, apparently you need an expensive flash. That is fine for water droplets, but does nothing for Golf, Tennis or following fast moving objects in sunlight. The idea you would buy a global shutter camera for portraiture is very strange, although reduced DR wouldnt necessarly be a problem given proper exposure setup.

DR, Resolution, Motion Distortion all have a role in the usability of an image. For fast motion, I find Motion Distortion be a limiting factor in what photos will be keepers and which photos are junk. No sense correcting exposure of a photo of a bent propeller, golf club or tennis racquet. Call me intrigued, but not in the preorder line, maybe R1 will be 45 MP with readout time < 1/300. That would be faster than the R5 shutter.

 

[TonyG]

Yes, cool lens. You're right, it's on another level. Instead of just making an RF version of the EF 300 2.8, Canon made a 100-300 2.8 that is as good if not better than the prime. Which is more innovative?
Where is Sony's 28-70 f/2? Or their 24-105 f/2.8?

Where’s the Canon 12-24 2.8? Or 20-70 4.0? Or 35-150 2.0-2.8?
Still waiting for a RF 14 1.8, 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 L.
One brand is not better then the other and get what suits your needs. If you like the Canon or Sony ecosystem, then invest in the one that suits yours needs.

As impressive as Canon RF lenses are, the simple truth is for the same price of a RF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, one could purchase a Sigma DG DN 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4 and 105 2.8 macro…. So there is that to consider other then “look at we were able to make”

 

[danfaz]

Where’s the Canon 12-24 2.8? Or 20-70 4.0? Or 35-150 2.0-2.8?
Still waiting for a RF 14 1.8, 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 L.
One brand is not better then the other and get what suits your needs. If you like the Canon or Sony ecosystem, then invest in the one that suits yours needs.

As impressive as Canon RF lenses are, the simple truth is for the same price of a RF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, one could purchase a Sigma DG DN 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4 and 105 2.8 macro…. So there is that to consider other then “look at we were able to make”

I get what you're saying, but did you read the post I was responding to? That post implied Sony is "on another level" in regards to innovation. There was no question about price or what classic lenses are missing from the lineup.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I get what you're saying, but did you read the post I was responding to? That post implied Sony is "on another level" in regards to innovation. There was no question about price or what classic lenses are missing from the lineup.

It’s a typical tactic. Did you know that cos²(A) + sin²(A) = 1? Sorry, that’s just another tangent.

 

[H. Jones]

This is a great reminder of the diminishing returns on advanced technology, all around.

As someone with an R3, nothing in this entire launch has made me want anything extra out of my R3. I'm honestly not truly even sure how Canon is going to sell me, as an R3 owner, on the R1 either at this point.

There's nothing I feel like my R3 can't do for me that I need it to do. It's at the point of responsiveness that feels like it does everything that my DSLRs could do better than they could.

I'm honestly not sure what to expect. I would personally say that a super fast 84mp sensor that can also shoot 24mp raw with quad pixel autofocus would probably interest me more than global shutter would, since it would basically let me switch between my portrait/landscape work and my sports/news work with one camera.

 

[Walrus]

Where’s the Canon 12-24 2.8? Or 20-70 4.0? Or 35-150 2.0-2.8?
Still waiting for a RF 14 1.8, 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 L.
One brand is not better then the other and get what suits your needs. If you like the Canon or Sony ecosystem, then invest in the one that suits yours needs.

As impressive as Canon RF lenses are, the simple truth is for the same price of a RF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, one could purchase a Sigma DG DN 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4 and 105 2.8 macro…. So there is that to consider other then “look at we were able to make”

This

 

[vignes]

Yes, cool lens. You're right, it's on another level. Instead of just making an RF version of the EF 300 2.8, Canon made a 100-300 2.8 that is as good if not better than the prime. Which is more innovative?
Where is Sony's 28-70 f/2? Or their 24-105 f/2.8?

Sony is not knowns as traditional lens company. Canon is. You have to factor this into perspective. They're really committed and driven.

 

[Skux]

I shoot theatre under LED light and this camera is the holy grail. Full silent shooting with no banding from LED flicker.

That being said, it's not essential. My R6 gets the job done just fine with the mechanical shutter. It's not silent, but it's quiet enough.

I'm not buying this camera, but I'm glad it exists and this kind of tech will one day be available in a more affordable midrange body.

 

[koenkooi]

I shoot theatre under LED light and this camera is the holy grail. Full silent shooting with no banding from LED flicker.

That being said, it's not essential. My R6 gets the job done just fine with the mechanical shutter. It's not silent, but it's quiet enough.

I'm not buying this camera, but I'm glad it exists and this kind of tech will one day be available in a more affordable midrange body.

The R6II and R8 feature HF flicker reduction, that works wonders if all the LEDs run at the same frequency. It works wonders when I use it for family pictures, but I haven't tried in theatres yet.

 

[Fbimages]

This is a great reminder of the diminishing returns on advanced technology, all around.

As someone with an R3, nothing in this entire launch has made me want anything extra out of my R3. I'm honestly not truly even sure how Canon is going to sell me, as an R3 owner, on the R1 either at this point.

There's nothing I feel like my R3 can't do for me that I need it to do. It's at the point of responsiveness that feels like it does everything that my DSLRs could do better than they could.

I'm honestly not sure what to expect. I would personally say that a super fast 84mp sensor that can also shoot 24mp raw with quad pixel autofocus would probably interest me more than global shutter would, since it would basically let me switch between my portrait/landscape work and my sports/news work with one camera.

I am with you on this one. The readout speeds using ES (which is 16 bit by the way EDIT 14 bit, not 16 bit) are so quick I don't notice rolling shutter. I would however really appreciate a version of pre shoot. For birds on perches and other wildlife when it's easy to miss the critical moment, it would be a nice addition

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am with you on this one. The readout speeds using ES (which is 16 bit by the way) are so quick I don't notice rolling shutter.

When did the R3 get an extra two bits?

That was rhetorical, it didn't. The R3 delivers 14-bit RAW files with mechanical or electronic shutter (though it's worth noting that at base ISO you lose about 2/3-stop of DR with electronic).

 

[Fbimages]

When did the R3 get an extra two bits?

That was rhetorical, it didn't. The R3 delivers 14-bit RAW files with mechanical or electronic shutter (though it's worth noting that at base ISO you lose about 2/3-stop of DR with electronic).

Sorry, you are right, I had the GFX 100 numbers in mind! Are you sure about your DR numbers? I know there is a noticeable impact on the R5 but I can't see much difference with the R3. EDIT just checked the Photons to photos website, 0.7 stops difference!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

At the end of the day, it depends if a monopod is used. "Light" is still relative to holding it for hours. Sony is making it easier to hand hold but won't always be used that way. At least there is an option for that choice which is good for everyone.

Making a light prime is great and I think Canon should do the same.
However, a not-too-heavy zoom is far more useful.

 

[P-visie]

A link to PhotographyBlog for those that want to see what the high iso images look like (jpg and raw files).
Spoiler alert: the high(er) iso images look noisy.

 

[Surab]

Y'all need to stop making claims about unreleased hardware that will be released in 6 months. It's embarrassing.

BTT: Exciting news for sure, but by the time I could afford this tech, the other companies will probably have released their own versions. I'm still most interested in the R6II for now.

 

[David - Sydney]

I am with you on this one. The readout speeds using ES (which is 16 bit by the way EDIT 14 bit, not 16 bit) are so quick I don't notice rolling shutter. I would however really appreciate a version of pre shoot. For birds on perches and other wildlife when it's easy to miss the critical moment, it would be a nice addition

With the R5, ES means dropping to 12bit as well unfortunately.

 

[Lt Colonel]

The base ISO is 250. If they kept the read noise the same (probably they were able to, maybe not), DR should be similar to other Exmor sensors at ISO 250. The a9 II delivers 10 stops of DR at ISO 250, per Bill Claff's data. Compare that to the Canon R3, which has 12 stops of DR at base ISO (100).

Wait, what? Canon's sensor has 2 more stops of low ISO DR than Sony? Calling all DRone Warriors who were so active in bashing Canon a decade ago for their awful low ISO DR compared so Sony sensors (in both Nikon and Sony bodies), when the difference was just 1-1.5 stops. Where are you now? I fully expect you to all start heavily criticizing Sony for this terribly awful 2-stop loss of low ISO DR compared to Canon.

And then I woke up.

and don't forget them damning the R3 for only having 24 MP.

 

[padam]

Good point. Meaning the initial slope would just continue, which is worse.

From samples at least, it really doesn't look that bad to me. Maybe because today's cameras are already excessively good in the first place.
With video though, it might more visible, S-Log 3 might be misleading, won't really make that much use of it, just makes it look better than an A9II.
The main thing is that Sony could have easily just told roughly how it compares to their own models without mentioning the competition.
But Fuji also made questionable claims about the GFX 100 II having "improved dynamic range and readout speed", debunked by Jim Kasson.

My gripes are not attributed to the 24MP stacked GS sensor and it's features. Looks like they've made that as good as they could.

It's the omission of CFexpress 4.0 type-A support that seems silly at this price, and also they didn't improve cooling (maybe with an optional accessory than Canon might do - would be smart), which would have also been necessarily to make full use of its headline feature. So while the camera is probably fully capable of oversampled 4k120p, they just left it out, maybe intentionally to segment it from their professional camcorders.
(It also annoys me that there is no oversampled 4k60p in an R5, even just for a few minutes, simply something that the camera can do, but it's not enabled - same with cropped RAW video recording options)

 

[koenkooi]

[…]
(It also annoys me that there is no oversampled 4k60p in an R5, even just for a few minutes, simply something that the camera can do, but it's not enabled - same with cropped RAW video recording options)

The 4k60 in crop mode is oversampled, very useful for insects and reptiles. Not as oversampled as the full sensor would be, but still better than 1:1 or line skipped video.

FWIW, the R5C requires extra external power for full sensor 60p and autofocus, so I’m not convinced the R5 can actually do full sensor oversampled 4k60 with AF, no matter the duration.

 

[padam]

The 4k60 in crop mode is oversampled, very useful for insects and reptiles. Not as oversampled as the full sensor would be, but still better than 1:1 or line skipped video.

FWIW, the R5C requires extra external power for full sensor 60p and autofocus, so I’m not convinced the R5 can actually do full sensor oversampled 4k60 with AF, no matter the duration.

Yes, I've used that mode to record birds. Second one is wrong, it's the 8k60p mode that's limited.