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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@@dirtysouthtiger I'd like for someone who's already a photography RU-vidr 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. 🥲
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".
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 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.
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
Good thoughts, thanks. Some are quick to forget that 200 iso was a popular base for DSLRS a while ago, when 12 MPix seemed ample. For the record I regularly use iso 32 for landscapes to get several minute exposures. I am also not scared to shoot events without flash and a fast lens at upto iso 16k, because software can recover noise if necessary...This global shutter will solve the rare occasions when I’m clumsy and get banding!
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.
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.
In regards to the flash sync - you didn't mention that the t.1 time at full power of most hot-shoe speedlight style flashes is around 1/300 second. So in this particular circumstance, the base 250 ISO will work against you when shooting in daylight with a typical hot-shoe flash. I still agree that the camera and sensor are terrific!
Yeah I'm eager to actually try it with the off-camera strobes I would use to see how it actually functions. It has the ability to adjust the timing of the flash sync, so it might be possible to exceed the flash's stated sync speed... we'll just have to see how it works in the real world because nothing like this has previously existed.
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
… 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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
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 😉
@@IAmR1ch this product isn't designed or marketed to you. It doesn't solve a problem that you have. It solves problems that other people have. Cameras are tools. Every tool is different. Just because you don't need a specific tool does not negate the need of someone else for that tool.
@@cecilsharps I just said, waiting might be a better option, for another manufacturer to produce a global shutter with 100 ISO. My point is people have been shooting and producing great stuff and working around not have a global shutter because there was no GS available. I think they could continue doing what they were doing before and seeing of someone comes out with a better implementation of this technology. I mean, if you have money to burn, sure by the latest tech but it is usually rich people who do that then throw it away a few months later when something better comes out. Photographers and Cinematographers don't have that luxury. And if you have the money you probably would not buy a film camera based solution, you would be working with pro level videographers stuff. But you are right, i would never buy this camera. I don't know anyone who would.
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.
Love where this tech is going....but as a longtime Nikonista, I'll be waiting years for the trickle down! That said...what I would like to see in a camera like this is: ISO 50-50k, 36mp, improved buffer rate/choice of (FAST) memory cards, etc. This is a "new car model"....and like a car, I never buy a new model; too many bugs....I'll wait a couple years.
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.
I think that it could be an issue for video, when you are stuck with the shutter speed for a smooth motion... i don't make videos so... maybe i'm wrong
It's a good point. It all depends on how you are filming. If you're using any flavor of SLOG, your base ISO is likely going to be higher (640 to maybe 2000 depending on the camera). You typically control your exposure with a variable ND filter when doing video, not via ISO since you're usually basing your exposure around whatever the base ISO is. It's a great topic for a video though!
@@MiguelQuilesJr i know nothing about video, i just made an assumpion based on what my friends often told me on the difficults they have faced in bright sunny day especially... and the fact that they would have prefered my canon iso 50 against their fuji iso 200 😀. I (think i) know you should shoot at max double the framerate (1/60 if 30fps and so on... correct?) For a smooth motion. I assumed that the extension to iso 50 is like having an nd but easier of course Ok... Here ends my culture on the subject 😀 For my usage of the camera i couldn't care less of the iso 250 considering WHAT this camera is capable of... it's the 7k that bothers me 😀 Thanks man
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
I am more morried about the maximum ISO of 25600. Usually if a camera has a low maximum ISO, it means that noise is very bad at high ISO. The A9 II still had a maximum ISO of 51200 (extended: 204800). I never understood why a camera can have lower high ISO noise by just introducing a second base ISO. Those cameras still catch the same amount of photons. So how do they get rid of the noise. And if a second base ISO is possible, why not a third or a fourth? Wouldn't that give us even lower noise over much of the ISO range?
Flash duration makes it unrealistic to shoot at any shutter speed. Unless you're using Profoto D2 (1000w and 2k$) you will still be almost on par with a "regular camera" or A1 at best. For example Godox AD600 gives you 300w of flash with 1/2 of power and 1/746 flash duration. So you're stuck with 1/800 shutter. And if you consider that you're 1+1/3 stops over with A9III (250 vs 100 ISO) you will get the same exposure with A1 at 1/400 shutter. For most users without Profoto D2 this "unlimited flash sync speed" is just a marketing gimmick. You are better of with A1 in this case. And you can't really use extended ISOs like 50 or 125, because they clip the highlights. It's the same thing like overexposing and pulling down in post. There are tests online that you can see for youself.
In your example with the ad600 (which i use) at half power, the flash is 1/746. So 1/800 shutter. I think the key factor that helps this be better than other cameras is the fact that flash power duration isn't flat, its brightest during the front end of the time. So if you bump exposure another stop to 1/1600, you cut out another full stop of ambient, but you are cutting out less than one stop of flash. You just cut the less bright tail off the flash. You are still gaining relative power balance in favor of flash vs ambient by raising shutter speed.
I literally just bought one a couple weeks ago when my bowens mount broke on my ad600. Haven't used it yet, but not excited with how much heavier it is. I am exited for the faster recycle time though, as someone who is shooting full blast with HSS quite often. And I was able to fix my ad600 with some epoxy resin so now i have two flashes! @@Arseny.Petukhov
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 😁
I’m going to be optimistic here. We have to remember that this is a brand new type of sensor that we have never seen before. Maybe the dynamic range and noise behaves differently than a regular sensor. I’m also going to speculate and say that maybe starting the ISO at 250 might produce less noisy images at the higher ISOs. Which is what this camera was designed for (sports and wildlife photographers). These are just my thoughts here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
