I don't mean just the A9 series. if you look at how many bodies they are releasing and have in production, the total its quite a lot in comparison to others i think.
I imagine you will be able to choose so surely better. 120fps in 14 bit Raw with pre capture is miles above the competition. The ability to ramp up the fps with a single button press is also a huge benefit especially as it is a new button.
That's disappointing, that being said I don't actually need or want anything else from my A1
Not the wow update many were hoping for.
People will always find something to complain about. The fact they've managed to put a global shutter in a 'mainstream' camera is pretty impressive to say the least. The A9III was never going to be high res anyway. For most applications I've always found 24mp the sweet spot.
I understand why they want to milk it, doesn't stop it from being crazy though
I don't undestand these frame rates, or why people would want them. I've got 30fps and I think I've used it twice at that speed and found it too much. I turn it down to 20fps or 15fps and still end up with too many frames all looking the same.
I'd imagine shooting 120fps in 24mp raw would cause some significant heat from the processor, but it'll only be in short bursts so can't see it being an issue. How it affects video though I wouldn't like to say.
If I am shooting football or rugby I would find it really useful to be shooting at 20fps all game and when there is a try about to happen I can single press a button and shoot at 120fps. I am hoping that can be combined with pre-capture too so you would only take the shots if you needed too. In time sports photographers could train their brains to shoot what they saw instead of what they think is about to happen. Even at 120fps we may take less shots then and if the fps is customisable so that you can speed boost say from 20fps to 40fps then it could be even more useful. It is a sports camera so you have to view it through that lens
But that's my point, you don't miss anything at 30fps, it's already like shooting video. Obviously some will use it and feel the need for it, I just see as a bit excessive. YMMV of course.
Interesting, from my experience having a higher native ISO means more noise at base. Not great for landscapes but clearly this is not aimed at that.
I'm definitely not a sports photographer. I do however shoot a fast dog action out in a field and basically 20fps gives you a decent coverage of the sprint, but it still is a little jumpy, so like 40 would be somewhat better, but not by that much. The question is mostly how many sequences you want to capture to definitely have enough.
I definitely don't see any reasons to specifically pick this body for landscape work, at least for now. None. Better alternatives are available. If you have one out with you then it will do just fine for that.
You are likely correct but I have very little need for low iso and can always add an ND if I need. There is very little mention of noise so I suspect there is no advance and teh part about composite RAW images to reduce noise may give a hint to the high iso performance. As long as it is as good as the A9ii then that will be fine for the vast majority of circumstances
I imagine over 95% of the frames I shoot are at 1/1250 or faster. At this time of year I will often be shooting above iso 3200 and to be honest I never really think about noise these days as the jpegs as still more than useable at iso25600 and the RAW software is so good if you get a frame you really like and want to work further on.
I think you could potentially miss photos shooting at 120fps as it's going to take the buffer some time to clear even with a fast card and that could potentially mean missing shots coming after. 30fps is already incredibly fast and for the speed most subjects are moving at I can't genuinely see how many sports photographers are going to benefit from that. It's also going to make editing an absolute nightmare unless it's used extremely sparingly at which point the benefit diminishes further. What does amuse me is I'm told on a fairly regular basis that 'machine gunning' photos is the sign I'm an amateur photographer and talented photographers don't need to do that to the same degree. It feels like a nice headline feature to show off the camera and although I'm certainly not a sports photographer, by far the biggest limit in action photos is shutter speed and not having good enough high iso to get the speeds that are needed.
I for one won't . 30FPS is fast enough and if you can't get the shot at that you need to look at another type of photography. At 30fps a 3sec burst gives you 90 shots at 120fps gives you 360 shots and most sports togs don't have time to go through 360 shots to find the one to wire out. Its bad enough at 90.
I personally don’t think you need 120fps to prevent missing that one moment, sports togs have been coping for years getting that moment with much less frame rate, they even used to manage it with film cameras at 1fps. It’s about knowing the sport, predicting when and where the shot will come. Sure with 120fps you could get lucky, but if you know what you’re doing you can get the shot without it.
Since when did the D70 have a global shutter?
Absolute scenes at LCE Guildford, man seen camping outside, people have been buying him food and drink, asking what his story is and wishing him well.@trevorbray likes new shiny things - I can see this already in his hands
Yep. Great for action shots of my dogs.@trevorbray likes new shiny things - I can see this already in his hands
Sounds familiar…
It will play the burst as a movie and then you pause where you see peak action. It sounds like a far more rounded version that other brands and it should be as they are last to the party. No dual gain sensor which is a wee bit of a blow and may mean iso performance may be slightly compromised.
I think it's the dynamic range that'll be compromised. They'll most likely manage to keep the ISO performance on par
It is incredibly unusual for me to shoot a burst for a second. While sports photographers have nailed the shot for decades they have simply chosen the best one from teh burst since fast frame rates came in half a century ago. Even at 30fps I will often wish there was a frame in between two that are really good. When you have multiple elements moving in different directions and changing foregrounds and background positions relative to teh subject a tiny amount of time can and does matter. Saying all that there is the practicality of choosing that shot quickly particularly if you are sending immediately from an event. I'd far rather have the ability to slow my frame rate than not have the ability to speed it up for a special moment. One thing I saw was that you will have the choice to shoot at different rates so 10, 15, 20, 30, 60 and 120 fps. If you are able to say mix 20fps with a speed boost to 60 then that may be really useful.I personally don’t think you need 120fps to prevent missing that one moment, sports togs have been coping for years getting that moment with much less frame rate, they even used to manage it with film cameras at 1fps. It’s about knowing the sport, predicting when and where the shot will come. Sure with 120fps you could get lucky, but if you know what you’re doing you can get the shot without it.
When I’ve shot with or spoken to pro sports togs the fewer shots they can take the better. Many say they shoot in 3-5 shot bursts. TBH I’ve had a number of wildlife togs say the same.
Obviously everyone’s experiences will be different but I’d hate to shoot at 120fps. I’ve got carried away at some events coming back with over 4000 photos and it’s a royal pita going through them all. At 120fps that’s less than 40s of shooting
Since when did the D70 have a global shutter?
Obviously it won’t play as a movie in Lightroom etc
Probably, but DR isn’t a priority with sports.
Each to their own
The more things move on the more we demand. When we were getting 5fps people were saying if only I could have 10fps I’d be able to choose the exact frame I want. When we got 10fps people were saying if only we got 15fps we could choose the exact frame we want. 
I wouldn't want more all the time. But nice to have when you know there was a chance of something important happening. Striker about to score, cricketer getting his hundred or a run out about to happen, runners dipping for the finish in the final of the 100m etc etc. I doubt anyone will use it all the time. The pre-capture, particularly if it is well implemented and easy to turn on and off may be more usefulI personally can’t believe we’re at 30fps and we’re still wanting more, maybe I need to move with the times more
You still need to nail focus and be tracking the right bit of action. If I was young with great reactions it may mean I choose to shoot what I see knowing it was worthy of frames rather than shoot what I hope will be worthwhile.
I guess it does, but then it opens the door to those less skilful perhaps and therefore watering down the market?
)
I've not seen anything, do manufacturers release these details or is it usually down to people like DXO to provide that info?
I can only speak from my experience obviously but when togs are shooting mainstream sports they are uploading to the internet imediately after a race, or even during a game, they don't have time to sift through hundreds and hundreds of photos and so keeping shots to a minumum is a big advantage for them.
Yes I agree.
