That's a great observation: not only did Sony lie about the DR hit but why did they feel the need for doing so? If it's such a minor compromise then why not be transparent about it?

I really hope the next time when a Sony exec is questioned that he is asked about this.

@Thomas A Anderson
Sony did not do anything unusual from a marketing standpoint: presenting the product from the best possible angle. It was clear from the start that some level of compromise was done because 1) the sensor architecture cannot defeat physics and the base ISO 250 gave that away already 2) for the intended audience of the camera the A9III does not compromise much at all, the image quality is perfectly usable and does not trail dramatically current state of the art sensors. Sony was not trying to trick to sell the product to newbies in photography, but to an audience that knew what to expect: a a global sensor camera that can deliver without taking a serious hit on IQ.
What I find interesting is that if Sony had really done something so bad, Sony users, the audience for this cameras, would be with their arms in the air. Oddly enough, non-Sony users instead seems to be outraged and worried about the ethical dilemma.

Sony did do something unusual from a marketing standpoint: they outright lied about the product. It wasn't that they didn't mention it and just focused on the good points about the camera, the product manager literally took the issue head on and stated the opposite of what was true.

@Thoughts R Us
whatever your argument may be you still haven't told us why this is such a big deal for you. I am more interested in hearing that. Apparently all Sony users do not care, but you who is not invested in the system and do not plan to get the A9III cannot sleep over it.

They never said that the product has the same DR or high ISO performance as the other Sony bodies. It's not lying. Obviously when you release something new, you boost its advantages, not disadvantages.

Sigh. We've been through this before. The product manager literally said "global shutter without compromise. People said you're going to compromise ISO, you're going to compromise dynamic range. Well we overcame that, we're Sony, we're the largest sensor manufacturer in the world, of course we're going to do it, we're the only ones that can do it."

That starts at 14:27 in the announcement video if you care to see it.

I don't know how you can interpret that otherwise. As I said before I hope someone asks a Sony exec about that the next time they offer interviews.

lol I'm neither a Sony fan nor a Sony hater, but really? "why is that a problem to you"? lol If you can't see why it's wrong for any of the companies to misrepresent their product... Saying "it's only the non-Sony people care" looks just as strange; it looks like the Sony side is just thinking "hey what's the big deal, everyone else does it, etc."

Whether you're a Sony fan or not, at least try to take a step back and not act like what they did was completely fine and be fair about it. I get it, there are times where people go out of there way to put down a camera or brand for no reason but call it like it is lol Sony (or any other camera system for that matter) doesn't need people to defend things like that lol

Part of it is that it seems like Sony's fans want to boast about their company's achievements and would call out Canon or Nikon if they did the same thing. Like apple fans defending their RAM prices, and I'm typing this from a MacBook LOL These companies don't need defense

@space cap
I think you are missing my point here. I am questioning the motivation of non-sony users to call out to nausea a Sony representative marketing stunt. For some reason they seem to care so much about something that, stunt or not, it was a realistic and expected limitation of the sensor. We are a week in with this article and 800 comments and someone like TRU still keeps on beating this dead horse over and over, you start questioning what is the real motivation for bringing this up still, considering that they are not even affected by it as they are non-Sony users.

@Thoughts R Us

"For some it will be worth it, for others no." Exactly, like anything else.

Since you have been on this forum for days beating the same drum over and over, maybe it is time that you tell us something I thing most of us are curious about:

Since you would never buy a Sony, why is it so close to your heart that their announcement may have hidden performance limitations of the A9iii? I mean honestly, given your activity around here it seems like you lost your sleep over it at some point.

So please tell us why since I think we all heard clearly that this was a big issue for you, so we can relate to your broken emotions.

For years every time a Canon camera was released it got hammered in the comments sections for having less DR than its peers, regardless of what the camera was primarily designed for. It was a major talking point. Even when Canon essentially caught up to Sony & Nikon with DR it was dismissed as not real because of applying some form of NR in the raws.
It wasn't the big deal it was made out to be then, neither is it now, but its hard not to laugh at the many posters who suddenly find that they have no problem with less DR. It will be even funnier if it turns out that the A9iii applies NR to its raws, as is suspected by Richard. I hope for the sake of those posters it doesn't because the type of lingustic gymnastics they will need to perform to explain that away might leave them permanently damaged :)

@Myles Baker
boy are you ever late to this party....
So to repeat myself one more time to state, again, the obvious: the A9III trades some IQ for unique qualities. Similarly the D5 and the D6 did trade DR too for other qualities: low light performance.
No instrument is perfect at everything, in fact the better is at one thing the more likely is to be worse at something else.
However, old Canon sensors were just old technology no benefits to trade for the low DR... just the user money. So criticism was deserved there. Granted some people still dragged it out when it made no sense, but that is true for all brands, calling Sony toys or bad color science, or Nikon poor AF performance in the Z models. All these brands gained a bad name at some point and the bad stigma stuck for longer than needed. What you are doing just like many around here is double standard.

Btw if you check out my gear you may notice that I have and have had way more Canon than Sony gear....

The problem Canon had is that they didn't have any cameras with decent DR, nor did they offer any other benefits to stand out from the competition to compensate for the loss of DR (which was like 2-3 stops instead of about 1.5 on the A9II). Not every camera has to be best at everything if it offers capabilities that you need and no one else offers.

They also lied about how each release of their DSLRs had 2 stops improved low light performance. Wonder if TRU cried endless posts about that back then.

@Armandino
The dig wasn't at you, it was a general observation. You are generally one of the most balanced commentators on here.
And I know the A9ii trades a little bit of image quality for some unique abilities & I have no problem with that and I doubt anyone seriously considering it will either. Just as other sports oriented cameras always had trade-offs for speed and cameras like the 5DR had trade offs for what was then the first high res FF camera on the market and my current camera has trade-offs for size, wieght & price.
None of this is new. Its just funny watching so many people get so defensive about it, especially when considering their comments when the shoe is on the other foot.
@randomguy. DR was never a serious issue with Canon cameras, just as this isn't now, just look at the images produced by those "inferior" sensors over the years. Stellar images despite the naysayers.

Armando it was the same when mirrorless obsoleted the flapping mirror…. It took until their favorite brand also came out with mirrorless before they stopped plastering with negativity and started to embrace the advancement.

Some things never change.

@armandino: what you call "cranky" posts are just those in the least bit critical or questioning of the camera.

it's not wrong to point out the DR/noise penalty of GS. it is not wrong to question the impact of GS. Those are legitimate.

Now one can make various arguments about the value of GS in certain situations, but anything short of praise is not being "cranky."

I do agree with you that there is too much negativity in society, but please, an honest assessment of a camera for its weaknesses as well as strength is not the problem.

I said perspective lacking in the comments section. Not the article…
so you have rather missed the point.

Funny...I've said many times over when some were nitpicking flaws in other brands that perspective was needed.

Sony marketing and their YouTube promoters have trained so many to focus on some minute tech details so they could claim some superiority. Now it comes back to bite them.

Perspective works both ways though. One has to measure this camera against the others available, esp at this price range, which have ultra fast stacked sensors that come so close in results to the GS in most situations. Perspective would say that the benefits of GS over stacked sensors right now are marginal and confined to some edge use cases. So you have to have perspective in assessing benefits.

Well said, it is a return of the baton, so they should not complain if they are judge by the same measure.

The article sums up the obvious. Thank you Mike.

@Thoughts R Us
"Now that some independent tests are getting out and reality is setting in, there's all sorts of qualifiers and narrowing of the expectations"
probably true for you, and many others that are not the intended audience for this camera. Pretty much in line with expectations so far for for anyone else.

@armandino, you are speaking for yourself.

I guess it is more hopeless that I thought this time.

If you don’t know why you need it…. You don’t need it…

This will not be a bench mark camera for long. Even Sony will quickly upgrade it with a A9 Mk IIIV when they improve the sensor. When Nikon and Canon launch their versions they will wait to get it right rather than rushing to market.

Agreed...this tech is "potentially" game changing. The verdict is still out.

As to GS becoming mainstream...some (maybe most) of that will be decided by smartphone companies and if they adopt GS.

In large sensor cameras I don't expect GS to become mainstream for a long time if ever. The cost is too high and the volume is not there to lower cost rapidly.

The first FF stacked sensor camera was announced in 2017 by Sony. 5 years later Nikon debuted the first FF stacked sensor camera to launch at/just below $4000. Ironically Sony has not been the one rushing to lower the cost of FF stacked sensor cameras or using a stacked sensor across its product line.

But yes...Sony deserves credit for leading the way into GS for FF.

If this is such a breakthrough for video creators, why has Sony not released one demo reel yet? It’s 2 months since the announcement. They have video samples for all of their other cameras. They usually have that ready on the day of the announcement.

It sure doesn't look like Sony is gonna do a R5 hype release :) It's also very unlikely Sony spends its time trying to disappoint you.
Having said that I doubt Sony is seriously targeting the A9iii for filmmakers. But seeing The Creator was shot on FX3 due to its compactness, I can certainly see A9iii being a strong alternative to the entry level REDs especially again because of the e-mount as opposed to RF mount.
And again, you are not the target market for the A9iii, so why are you so anxious anyway?

"The discussions on the new A9iii here are all very interesting"
tis already obsolete pending the next gen release addressing the noise and DR limitations as Sony seems to have listened to their customers......

@MPUK can you name a game changing camera in the last 20 years bet you can not ,things evolve not really game changing .it will only become known/regarded as game changing if others follow suit ,ie from film to digital ,or non stacked sensor to stacked sensor which is really not game changing either ,

The fact that the GS finally made it inside a mainstream sports camera is the beginning of a new era. I am sure it will be a game changer at the olympics, at least for the Sony users. Just like the original A9 brought game changing capabilities to sports photography the A9III will do that again. The advancement is a bit more subtile but it does tackle a range of conditions in a very elegant and effective manner for which with adapted in the past with workarounds or just straight up accepting what was not possible to do.

A new technology is setting a new path forward and can be called a game-changer in whatever limited sense.

The first product itself may not have all the benefits but the doors are just opened. As firmware updates and new models are released, there will be constant refinement.

First full frame sensor, first CMOS sensor, first BSI sensor, first stacked sensor, dual gain tech, now the GS, and many others I have not listed are all game changers.

Is this model the pinnacle? Nobody is saying that and it's fair.

Let's not forget what's happening on the s/w side. Technologies like DXO's PRIME NR, and others for multiplying resolution, are also game changers.

Those who were wise enough to save raw files over the last two decades can now get better output from their files using today's s/w. For others, I am sure there will be possibilities in the future where JPEGs can also be enhanced in ways not possible today.

" can you name a game changing camera in the last 20 years"
To name a few
M8-M9
Nikon D1
S1 Pro
Panasonic G1
Sony α7 perhaps?

Aside from those mentioned above, there's the Canon 5D Mark II, Nikon D3, Nikon D800...

I’m sure that had Canon launched it, it would have been labeled as a game changer. Like the R1.

Well, let's take the example of the Canon 5D Mark II. When it was launched, we had the Laforet video, Reverie, clearly demonstrating its capabilities. And boom! Instantly everyone knew everything had changed.

There was that same reaction when the D3 was launched. It was very apparent that this indeed was a true game changer.

Usually if something is a true game changer in a broad sense, it's obvious to just about everyone very quickly.

Now something could be a game changer for a more narrowly defined game. Right now that's what this A9 III is. But to me that is not a true game changer as most understand the term.

When the camera ships then we can see what people do with it.

But so far it hasn't had this sort of obvious demonstration of disruptive change that let's say, the 5D II had.

The *3 stops of loss in exposure latitude* are not "very small" by any means:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=sony_a9iii&attr144_1=omsystem_om5&attr144_2=nikon_d780&attr144_3=nikon_d5500&attr146_0=250_7&attr146_1=100_6&attr146_2=100_6&attr146_3=100_6&attr177_1=efc&attr177_2=efc&normalization=compare&widget=205&x=-0.8865308783964844&y=0.12063970139733005

The 5Dmk2 was an evolutionary step.
Nothing revolutionary in it, tech wise.

It did make an excellent product. This is kinda what Apple does on a daily basis— nothing to sniff at, but not a game changer.

Nikon D3 - changed everything. Period.

Jon: The 5D mark II literally started the entire hybrid camera revolution. It launched a whole wave of video content makers along with entire industries of add on products. After that all ILC's had to have video. The impact was substantial.

Your comment is revealing because it shows the difference between judging a product on its impact vs the technology inside. To me the most important factor is the impact upon people: users, the market, the culture at large.

There have been many technologies that were impressive but went nowhere or had limited impact. Sony has been involved in some of them.

Now a technology and can be impressive and have huge impact as well. Sony has had some of those as well.

But ultimately if something is going to be given the title of "game changer" then to me it needs to have substantial impact. Right now the verdict on global shutter and this camera in particular is still out IMHO.

@SteveAnderson - Or a mirrorless camera with a full mechanical shutter :) Most mirrorless have full mechanical shutter bar a few models. I agree that the omission of mechanical shutter in the z9, z8 can be problematic despite super fast read out and even entry models that only have electronic first curtain can present issues with rolling shutter in certain circumstances.

I use electonic first curtain a good deal of the time on my A7r's to avoid shutter shock particularly at lower shutter speeds - but if I need to photograph any action or taking images from say a moving train/car. I ensure full mechanical shutter is engaged. I would only use ES in situations where i was dealing with faily limited or static subjects and only where it would be of benefit or polite to have fully silent operation.

But yes a good DSLR is still as good as it ever was.

There is rolling shutter in all DSLR's since a mechanical shutter is a rolling shutter. Z9's electronic shutter doesn't have more or less rolling shutter artifacts than a state of the art DSLR like D6 or 1DM3 since the shutter mechanism moving up and down is pretty much the same speed as the sensor readout of Z9.

LED banding will occur more with electronic shutters though.

Rolling shutter artifacts are not an issue with DSLRS or cameras like A1 or Z9 since their sensors are fast enough.

Missing the perfect moment has not been an issue with an A1 or a Z9 as well, especially since the Z9 has precapture anyway.

Tailslol,

Saying its a rolling shutter doesnt mean they behave the same though.

A DSLR shutter is twice as fast as an a9. I do not think a Z9 ES will stop warping similar to a DSLR. I havnt used one but because the sensor reads out behind a closed shutter on DSLR, the ES can not match that behavior.

A 1/5000 shot of a prop with ES is still reading off the sensor at its leisurely speed of 1/150 or in the case of non-stacked, 1/30ms or worse.

There are plenty of nice things a mirrorless can do. For me only the hugely improved AF tracking on R5 or better interests me though. EVF, random battery life, few other things dont interest me. Thats personal though.

Danart. Yes true. I may have forgotten to write vs ES. But most mirrorless folks dont seem to use mech shutter. You do obviously.

Cant beat the sound of a 7Dm2. I will miss that the most haha.

@steve. I fully agree with you and why I wouldn’t purchase a camera without a full mechanical shutter unless it had a GS. There are just too many examples I have faced with even electronic first curtain let alone ES to place full trust in a camera without a full mechanical option 👍 and yes, the sound is something that gives a satisfying confirmation that you have just captured an image :)

@SteveAnderson
The fastest mechanical shutter on a DSLr does 16fps in the most ideal conditions. The A9iii can do 120fps. Please let me know how you can pre capture with a DSLRr or any mechanical shutter? It is worth mentioning that 1) mechanical shutter is not exactly silent 2) introduces vibrations 3) Blacks out the sensor feed reducing the AF effectiveness (need predictive algorithms) and although we are accustomed to see it that way in the viewfinder, it is a kind of ironic to see what we do not capture and miss what we capture.
I understand that you are a DSLR aficionado, but technology is moving forward and looking back is not really the solution.

@SteveAnderson: Comparing a DSLR shutter with A9 or A9 Mark II is disingenuous at best and misleading at worst.
Compared to current cameras, like Sony A1, Nikon Z8 or Z9, or even Canon R3, DSLR shutters are no longer competitive. And it will only get worse.

Not at all disingenuous.

I state functional fact for the majority of cameras still in the field. Newer isnt always better in every way.
A DSLR shutter is twice as fast as an a9 and offloads behind a closed shutter so there is no warp effect. Im sick of writing it.

Lets see your sensor warping/banding/ and HSS ES compared to a mech shutter.

This is just information that I place here because so many of you are so hopped up on goofballs claiming and denying fact.

Armandino, you have obviously forgotten, willing or unwilling, about all those better than mine DSLR you used to own.
Lets see everyones shutter to capture lag. Better than 55ms, same or worse?

There is no looking back, ive owned and tested dozens of new cameras. I will keep the one I want. An R5 most likely.

These are functional facts for all of us. Only mentioned because so many of you push so hard the other way for some reason.

Sometimes newer means trade-offs.

7D AF tracking is not good. Hence the R5 coming. Nikon D500/850 and even D750 is very dependable. 8 of 10 in excellent focus. 7D much less.

a7iii AF was OK but quirky in a bad way, horrid EVF, horrible ergos.

Ive played with others from Fuji, Sony, Nikon. Not going to spend the time comparing here.

I dont see much argument for film other than the magnificent OVFs. Size, clarity, split focus. Awesome to use and look through.

I dont get the one-up crap you think is valid. Ive not claimed anything that is not true and noticeable.

And again the dinosaur word. Dont let personal preference cloud objectivity.
A D850 is not bad enough to laugh out of a current camera debate. Not remotely.

And again and again I never said mirrorless suck, there shouldnt be anything to defend as a fan or other. Civil debate should suffice.

PredatorsPrey on the other hand, this camera seems to be very similar in terms of performance to the R3.

When the R3 was released, many said it was perfectly acceptable and very close in terms of performance, and totally ignored the built in noise reduction in the raws.

Now it seems that the performance of the A9III is totally unacceptable...

First, Sony brought this criticism upon themselves with the product manager literally from the stage stating that there we no image quality compromises. When you make a claim and it's show to be the opposite, well, that's on them.

Second, while the IQ hit can be sometimes exaggerated, so too can the benefits of global shutter. Banding has never been this huge problem. Even when it exists in a photo, most don't notice it. I remember a photo of a soccer player with some banding on the electronic sign in the background. But guess what? Everyone looks at the player, not the sign in the background. A total non issue.

Same with the 120 fps. Most shots don't require that.

So far Sony hasn't exactly provided us with many shining examples of where a global shutter gets a shot but a fast readout stacked sensor would not. And video...they haven't even supplied us with a single sample video on their website. Why?

Nobody is saying "Sony is doomed" as far as I can see. Only that the GS is not the be all and end all that some are claiming, and that there is a visible trade-off in IQ. Whether or not it's worth it to you, well, your call. For me? Nope. I use, most of the time, EFCS and sometimes full mechanical shutter. No problems here.

@armandino
Well sophisticated denoise tools like NeatImage (in advanced mode) existed back then which could also get you some extra whole stops. So I wouldn't give too much about it. And really, you think 1/6 stop makes the difference despite it not being chooseable in camera with third stops being the smallest step?

Also not forget that canon cameras had the higher DR with increased ISO thus I wouldn't say there was nothing. But that changed and is past now. But please explain.

The GS penalty is well known and I mentioned it in discussion before this camera was tested. I'm also in the high fps market but I'd liked to leave anything specific out here because it shouldn't matter if the camera is for me or not.

@PAntunes
I also ignore RAW NR as long as its not obvious like eaten stars or something like that. The result is what matters or if you're so conservative why not sticking with film? Sony also seems to be starting raw nr, can't be that bad and those folks probably were right.

@PredatorsPrey
besides that old school denoising is nothing like current AI denoise, which makes images with 2-3 stops of worse noise virtually indistinguishable, you are tacking the least relevant element of my arguments: Canon did not offer anything outstanding to trade off IQ for. It is common to scrutinize beyond reason all new cameras against their equivalent peers, Canon, Nikon, Sony, all receive the same treatment. The Sony A9iii has no equivalent just like the original A9 did not have that either. The D5/D6 were not really criticized for their crop sensor base DR performance because of their outstanding low light capabilities. A7s is not criticized for low resolution.
It is a fact that for the longest time Canon sensor downstream noise was trailing badly the competition. Nikon and Sony had iso invariant sensors for several years before Canon caught up. Sure eventually the criticism was silly but it started on solid ground.
Note that I shoot both Canon and Sony.

@armandino, "GS brings in a lot for trading some IQ. Canon sensors were only trading IQ for nothing in exchange." Can you go trolling somewhere else ?

120fps, with autofocus and auto-exposure.

It’s sad watching Canon fanboys lose their minds.

Why is this $6000 camera alway being compared to ones that cost far less, and/or were released years ago? The R6 was released in 2020 and now retails for $2000. If the A9III is being compared, that's a loss for the A9 III regardless.

Also let's remember...sports pro's often shoot at higher iSO's to support higher shutter speeds. So the light sensitivity of the sensor can matter. GS because of its complexity does have a bit of a compromise in its light gathering capacity. So what GS gives in high burst rates it can take in high ISO handling.

The most expensive cameras today are not necessarily being geared for IQ so much as they are geared for speed and fast read outs. Here the A9iii is unparalled. We can compare the $4000 z8 with the sub $1000 8 yo Sony A7rii and arguing the diminshing returns of IQ all night if you like...

@danart
You don't need black cats in a coalmine if you take photos in the real world ;-)
If you're just using artificial lighting and go out only in the finest weather maybe but your shortened horizon doesn't apply to everyone.

The real world usually has more low light than you might imagine.

@predators - I have a link to my real world photos in my profile and consideirng a good majority of my linked flickr photographs are handheld night shots, I'm more than aware of low light situations. Or maybe you could link me to your gallery and "enlighten" me

@tru I was comparing the $6000 A9iii to the similarly priced R1, and I found the A9iii exists which is useful to photographers who want a high end camera to take pictures with.

It’s a fair question but Sony has done a few things differently with this camera. But in some ways the same and if we are marking Sony on past trends

Sony released the first FF stacked sensor in the A9. The A9 was a surprise as DR and overall IQ took a small hit to deliver fast read out speeds and and high fps full electronic shutter, etc... It’s video set was? However the future of sensor tech was with the A9 no? Stacked sensors have improved video output? Yes!

The A1 was introduced 4 years later with improved architecture, high MP great DR, great video capabilities. We now have stacked sensor architecture in flagships from all manufacturers.

2024 the first FF GS in the A9iii it’s IQ has taken a small hit to focus on fps, speed etc in stills. The video set?

Are we not seeing the obvious trend here??? Just as stacked sensors are becoming the norm, we are seeing the introduction of GS. We will see stacked trickle mid tier and GS will? improve. More MP, DR Video etc etc…

@tru Unlike Canon, Sony have a full range of cinema cameras, starting at under $2000, these are the cameras which a designed for video production. In the other Sony cameras video is a secondary function. It comes as no surprise to anybody, except you, that Sony are marketing this camera by showing off its primary function, being able to shoot 120fps, with full autofocus and auto exposure, something no other camera can do.
When marketing sports cars, car manufacturers don’t show pictures of the fact that you can drive to the shops a stick groceries in the back seat, maybe you should read up about how marketing works.

"Weather sealing" or whatever the companies claim is worthless marketing BS. When it comes to it and you got water damage on your equipment (which DOES happen to Canon 1d series) it is you who have to pay for it, most likely by buying new equipment.

Only Olympus actually give an IP rating. Do they actually repair water damaged cameras free of charge though?

@Kevin DiOssi: Pentax DSLRs have had this for at least 15 years.

@Kevin Yes, one simple feature could be this:
Let's say a shot is about to be taken (set by person or camera) at 400th sec and F8 and iso 320.
The A9iii takes the shot, and if the "anti-blown-highlight" feature is enabled, immediately (and I mean IMMEDIATELY, coz this camera can!) takes another exposure at 5 times the speed (i.e. 2000th sec) without changing anything else whatsoever.
Camera combines for simplistic anti-blowout fix, or leaves it to user on a PC.
Regarding subject movement, the effective net exposure time is a 333th of a second so barely more subject movement than at 400th sec.

There are trade offs and it's up to the individual to decide if they are worth it. Same as it ever was.

But two thoughts:
1) What is unusual is that Sony denied there being any trade offs right from the stage. Their product manager insisted there were no compromises, because "we're Sony." But there are compromises. Sony knew that; it's their camera. That's one reason why when they allowed people to take photos, their sample environments were so well lit. One person at the event said the lighting was almost excessive.

2) The advantages, like 120 fps, no banding, are going to be useful in certain contexts. But the image quality hit will be on every single image. Now I don't think many will even notice in many contexts, but nevertheless the penalty is there for every single photo and video.

From iso 250 and through the range there is no IQ compromise versus the A9ii. And it’s clearly cleaner than the a6600 throughout the range. Anyone looking at the studio scene on a large decent monitor can see this. Anyone that has unbiased experience knows there is no trade off here except a higher base iso of 250. Now for general photography loosing base iso is a compromise, but that’s not what this camera is about nor was it what Sony is saying when it said no compromises.

It’s actually surprising how well this sensor is performing for a 1st iteration of GS.

I expect Nikon to soon follow suite and no doubt Canon thereafter

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a9iii&attr13_1=sony_a9ii&attr13_2=nikon_z9&attr13_3=sony_a6600&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&normalization=compare&widget=898&x=-0.8538351867693185&y=0.15795309168443492

@danart
i didn’t realise that the a9ii sensor was so noisy.
So in that context that claim it’s probably somewhat accurate.
Vs the competition (R3) it looks a stop worse.

One problem with comparing with the A9II: if you are a Sony shooter, most likely your other choice is the A1. It's in the same price league.

The A9 II was released in 2019...it's about 4 and half years ago. It costs $4500. It should not be the only point of comparison. You need to compare against today's generation of cameras and those in the same price league.

The nearest comparison in the Sony lineup is the Sony A1 in price and later technology. Of course one can also compare to the Nikon Z9/Z8 and Canon R3 if one wants to compare across brands.

But regardless, you cannot ignore the A1 and just compare to the A9 II.

@faocisco - no. The R3 is not a stop better than the A9ii, whilst the R3 sensor does appear to perform slightly better due to known NR applied to RAW, these differences and the differences you are seeing in the test scene are negligible. But to claim the a9iii is only apsc in IQ is just simply incorrect.

@tru. You keep using the word problem, if we are calling the A9iii a problem for Sony. It’s simply a good problem and a “problem” other manufacturers wish they had (and will likely soon have). If I’m buying an A9iii it’s for 120fps, 0 rolling shutter no matter the action scenario and essentially unlimited flash sync and all the possibilities that come with these features.. If I’m buying an a9iii within the context of a professional setting which this camera is designed for. This is a rudimentary tax write off and I already likely have an A1… The A9iii is simply the update for the a9ii and being at the point of diminishing returns RE:iq. This is a true update

The possibilities have been demonstrated in grabs from a 120fps burst. You can maybe get that shot with 30fos, 12fps or 3fps. The fact is you just increase the probability of nailing shots at critical and one time opportunities. It’s essentially the ability to capture the scene in slow motion and trace back to the perfect frame. To say this won’t impact things like sports and action photography is simply naive

Every single current camera review will make mention of rolling shutter impacts as to the effectiveness of the sensor using blackout free high fps or capturing action or for obvious video applications., whilst stacked sensors can mimimise this, they don’t eliminate it. GS does.

Every image using high flash sync is a demonstration of what this camera is capable of.

That many of been pining for GS with this level of performance is not lost on many. For some it’s likely to become essential.

I think you will champion possibilities when another manufacturer rolls out GS.

In this industry if we are looking at the scale of possible expenditures, the cost of this camera is a flash in the pan versus lenses or even travel costs associated with a shoot. Even the fact this camera is available with the possibility of renting it for certain jobs is a game changer

It’s an easy justifiable expense if it nails you a single frame that makes you far more than the cost of this device. Or consistently makes that task easier in a very competitive environment.

I didnt say you couldnt get a great shot with less fps, but logic dictates you can get better with more. The somewhat agreement of perceiveable fps of the human eye is 30-60fps whilst we dont actually see motion in fps the point is we miss a lot with the naked eye. So 30fps isn't even keeping up with our natural ability of perception regarding the scene playing out in front of us.

Part of the appeal of photography/cinema are the qualities of beyond seeing. We cannot see things in macro, we have macro lenses that open new worlds. So whilst you can capture the perfect moment at 30fps, the human eye can perceive 30-60fps. The rest is beyond our natural perception. This is where we are missing "frames" and a lot of them. 120fps allows us to capture a split second that we otherwise do not perceive and opens up to us an image of perfection we would otherwise never realise. I'm aware of video, but i enjoy the otherwoldly qualties of what I call the "perfect container" that is the photograph.

your problems is generalisation. Logic does dictate that you can do better with better equipment, always, versus a determined skill set. Many common camera technologies were once exclusive for scientific or high end application.

Photography has and always will be an externally technology dependent medium.

You will get better IQ with a better sensor/film, you will get sharper images with a better lens. Skills can only close the gap of inferior tech to a point. Whilst not all pros need to use the latest, the skilled photographer will do better with better technology and will almost always eventually adapt or upgrade. Not all pros are frugal nor can they afford to be, many employ the lastest and most technologically driven systems available because the quality of their work is dependent on both skill and equipment to make the best images possible, images often only the best tech can deliver coupled with the best skill set.

Its fallacy that only hacks need better gear.

TRU, you spew out a lot of stuff in many directions, but I have take you to task here about your use of "sweatheart deal". What are you implying? kick backs? Your choice of words and insinuations are rather terrible.
Have you ever represent a large manufacturer to close a deal with a large client? Price of equipment is only one of the factors. Technology advantage, maintenace, SLA, parts availability, SLAs, repair locations etc are other factors that need to be ironed out before a sale can be concluded. And finally the client will have to decide on trust and credibility based on the vendor's track record and experience. If you have experience of any kind for such transaction, you would have appreciated how difficult for a large client to make a change in vendor and also for the sales manufacturing team putting the deal together. So please do stop commenting how press agencies conclude their businesses.

@Husband80
You forgot to mention the caveats for the Canon R3.
Come on, the Sony A9III is far superior than any Canon's. Canon/Nikon need a long time to catch up.

‘Far superior’ ❓. Different yes, innovative yes, ‘far’ superior - as yet unproved….

@Tweets, are you suggesting that superiority or exclusivity on a specific function means overall superiority? You forgot to mention the caveats of the A9III. I have seen none of the competing cameras compared to μ4 /3 or APS-C when in general use outside a specific niche.

"Jpeg and 11mpx for Z9/z8"

Yes the Sony implementation of 120 fps is nice and more complete. I also like the speed boost button. I wish all high speed cameras would implement that and maybe they now will. But...jpeg and 11 MP is enough to get out to the public via press services and post on social media. It may even be preferable.

Tony N tested the 120 fps on the a9 III and he found two caveats: it only goes for 1.5 seconds and then the camera slows down while the buffer clears for 9.5 seconds...and it fills up memory cards very fast, esp. if you do raw.

And I still have yet to see many compelling use cases for 120 fps beyond stuff like a water balloon popping or kind of science experiment stuff. Tony N showed us photos of his dog running where he liked the ears being up like a rabbit, but he got almost the identical shot with the A1 at 30 fps.

We will know when it's released if it is a big deal we should start to see dramatic images we otherwise have not seen.

“But...jpeg and 11 MP is enough to get out to the public via press services and post on social media. It may even be preferable.”

Remember how you were ragging on the A9 back in 2017 because it dropped to 12-bit raw at 20FPS.

I guess 11MP JPGs are good enough for you now??

Also the A9III doesn’t “slow down while the buffer clears for 9.5 seconds”. The camera shooting speed slows down while the buffer is *full* as all cameras do. And you can keep refilling the buffer before the buffer is completely cleared. You are getting confused with the R3 that completely locks up until the buffer is cleared…

Mike, you wrote:

"Also the A9III doesn’t “slow down while the buffer clears for 9.5 seconds”. The camera shooting speed slows down while the buffer is *full* as all cameras do."

That sounds to me a lot like the same thing. And granted I am only going by Tony N who shot the camera.

From the transcript: "the camera slowed way down after only a second and half and once the buffer fills it takes 9 and 1/2 seconds to clear the buffer whether you are shooting raw or jpeg."

He also noted the huge amount of photos to cull through, and the way it rapidly fills up the memory cards.

Make of that what you will. But let's face it: with burst rate as with every other metric, you get diminishing returns. When you go from 3-4 fps to 8-12 fps, you generally notice that. When you go to 20-30 fps you notice, but the difference is not as dramatic. And when you go to 120 fps, well, most stuff we photography doesn't require that kind of speed.

All in focus? ? Ha - not with my camera………oh…..😯

Maybe you need a Sony. :)

😊

@armandino, "R3 does not focus in between. It also has a quirky implementation" Do you really like make a fool of yourself ?

Show us where it isnt 99%. Kidding aside, this is a highly specialized camera.

Starting the vote now a1 or a9iii:

a1 please. a9iii is pretty neat though.

100% so far.

@TRU The only problem Sony have is in your head where they appear to live permanently.

you will not be seeing a sony a1mk2 in 2024 ,yes for the majority mp wins the race me included ,I think sony will slow up this year on releases for stills it is a vlog & video centric year ,they already stated.

The Mad Kiwi, R3 can shoot at 195 FPS

Sports shooters take JPEG shots and need them to get out to the public as soon as possible. So no time for denoising software.

Also, as for the 120 frames per second raw mode, again, sport shooters are going to be using that in JPEG.

“Sports shooters take JPEG shots and need them to get out to the public as soon as possible. So no time for denoising software.”

You are generalizing to fit your narrative.

Absolutely there are sports photographers pushing images in real time between breaks. But this makes up a small percentage of all of the work sports photographers do.. only the wire service guys are pushing at halftime. You have orders of magnitude more shooters doing high school games and higher level games not on a publishing deadline that edit their images and can process them to improve the result.

Additionally the images that are consumed minutes after the play occurred are for social media and scaled down to the point that noise isn’t really a factor anyhow,,,

Mike, all good points. But how many of those doing high school games are going to drop $6000 on a single camera? And how many willing and able to pay that money would still value the higher resolution of the A1 over the GS of the A9 III?

How many really need 120 fps for a high school game? How many worry about banding?

The consensus seems to be that this camera is mostly for higher end pro's. But I still question whether most of those pro's really need the advantage of GS when there are stacked sensor cameras.

There is a lot of generalising here that cannot see past the end of its nose. Whilst this camera might be geared towards sport’s photography from a marketing perspective as the obvious target market. There are many creatives that can see and will utilise the unique features and opportunities GS shutter offers to create new images as a result of new technology. And I would not rely on DP review telling you what those applications are. Not everything is about doing what you now do better. Photography has always been a technological driven medium and new technology offers new means to create.

It’s not about what you can do, it’s about what you never knew you could. The very cameras you use today that are “more than enough” are an example of exactly that. You didn’t need them yesterday but you cannot work without them today…

@danart
Could you name a few of those applications for global shutter beyond sports photography?

One definitive application would be action videography, as the GS would bring down rolling shutter to zero.
Just imagine some action stunt scenes that could be filmed from entirely new angles and perspectives with such a compact camera.

I could also imagine "freezing" motion in extremely fast moving animals - for example flying insects or the extremely fast wing beats of a Kolibri - just to name a few examples.

But there it ends as I cannot think of other use cases. Do you have some more examples?

Theater photography
Concert photography
Wedding photography
Certain types of portrait photography (benefitting from high flash sync)

“The litmus test will be once this camera ships.”

Wow…. Surprised to see you say that.
Based on all of your previous comments here it’s clear you have already passed judgement…

You should take your own advice.

Mike, I've been very consistent. I've simply said that no one has yet shown many compelling use cases for this GS yet and that much of the initial rhetoric was hype.

I am willing to change my mind. Just show me the money shots/videos. Show me stuff that knocks my socks off and is obviously something new and better than we've had before, that is enabled by the GS. Once the camera ships then we can see. But before then Sony certainly could offer up something. Why don't they do a demo video reel?

I still remember the impact of the Laforet video, "Reverie," shot on the Canon 5D Mark II, that ushered in this whole phase of hybrid video. All you had to do was watch that video and know it was taken with a DSLR and you knew the world had changed. That's what I expect to see from a true "game changer" camera.

If you need to see some fancy video on YouTube to show off this camera, then it’s not targeted at you. Those that are poised to take advantage of global shutter know already…

@Mike - once we see a Canon or Nikon badged FF global shutter camera, the benefits will be no doubt be spelt out to us all… until then and only then will TRU change his mind and back track his comments

Happens every time…

TRU is right: if there is only a marginal or no real-world benefit from a GS sensor compared to a very fast stacked sensor, then the motivation to purchase a very expensive new camera (and all new lenses, when coming from another system), will certainly not skyrocket.

Please note that TRU never said that this is the case but only that it remains to seen if or how much of a benefit the GS sensor will actually provide.

That's a totally valid point of view - and I am saying that as a Sony-shooter.

@ottonis
as MikeRan said: "Those that are poised to take advantage of global shutter know already…"
People who want the GS understand the benefits already, there isn't much that "remains to be seen" for them.
I get that many do not care or do not appreciate its value. Hey many think it is cool that the Z9/Z8 do not have a mechanical shutter, never mind a global shutter...

ottonis how will you see if the GS will actually provide an improvement?

If you see a photo with no banding, is it because it was shot using a GS or were the LEDs good enough for that not to happen?

If you see a great photo of the right moment was it because the photographer was shooting 120fps and had room to crop the image to get the right composition or did the photographer just got lucky and got the right moment shooting a single frame and with the right composition?

You see a portrait in the street lit with flash. Was the photographer using a very powerful strobe to light the scene or was he using GS with a smaller strobe?

There is no "I'll wait and see". The images won't be different. They'll just be easier to make.

We use 85mm equiv lenses from each system, wherever possible, though try to avoid using weird exotica (the GM was the most expensive testing lens when we started using it).

It performs well at F5.6 and we've not come across another own-brand 85mm that performs so much better as to make it worth breaking the backward comparability of the results.

I too commented before, that this GM is soft, but I looked again at my comparison with Sigma DG DN, and while GM is clearly softer at f/1.4, it sharpens pretty quickly with smaller apertures. I don't think we should blame less detailed images from Sony on this lens.