The response to the Sony A9 III has been almost as spectacular as the camera itself. Commentators have been bowled over by its insane 120fps burst speed, its distortion-free global shutter, its potential for flash sync at any speed and its 1/80,000 second maximum shutter speed.
The big news is the global shutter, which means that the whole image is read instantaneously, not ‘scanned’ in rows. Global shutters do exist already, but never in a professional full frame camera.
With regular sensors, you can get distortion effects where the subject moves while the sensor is ‘scanned’. This has limited the value of electronic shutters in the past, which is why cameras still have mechanical shutters. But these too have their disadvantages. In order to achieve higher shutter speeds, focal plane shutters need to expose the sensor in a fast-moving ‘strip’, which limits the maximum shutter speed you can use for flash.
So the electronic global shutter of the Sony A9 III doesn’t just sidestep historical problems with high shutter speeds and flash sync, it barges straight through them. And the global shutter also means that there should be no more ‘jello’ effects with fast camera movements while filming.
All this is great, so what’s my problem?
The Sony A9 III fixes problems only one photographer in a thousand has
It’s true, I’ve just plucked the ‘one in a thousand’ figure out of the air, but I think there’s a serious point to be made here. While any photographer with a technical understanding can see what the A9 III does that’s so spectacular, there are very few photographers for whom this will make a game-changing difference. They’re probably pro sports photographers at the top of their game looking for even the smallest competitive advantage over their rivals. That’s an important market, but a tiny one. One in a thousand is probably way off. One in ten thousand might be closer.
I’ll approach it another way. Any regular photographer can see what the Sony A9 III does that’s so technically amazing, but I’d be surprised if a regular photographer needed it for one shot in a thousand.
So what’s bothering me is that Sony has created a technological marvel – and I’m not denying that – which is important only to a very small number of photographers. It is, perhaps, a ‘halo’ product that few photographers actually need, but every potential customer sees as evidence of Sony’s technical prowess. The glamor will rub off.
A Sony A9 III reality check
Every photograph we see, admire or aspire to in the world today has been achieved without the help of the Sony A9 III. All right, you might start to see a few more special cases that only the A9 III can achieve, but would it be cynical of me to suggest that many will be contrived to show what’s possible that wasn’t before, without being in themselves of any great visual importance?
There are lots of good action-stopping cameras already. The Canon EOS R3 is rather good, as are the Nikon Z9 and Z8. Everyone thought the Sony A1 was rather good until Sony started undermining it with newer, cheaper and more advanced alternatives. All of these cameras are extremely good at stopping and capturing action, and while any technically-savvy photographer might see how the Sony A9 III can do things they can’t, will any member of the public, any picture editor, or that many professional photographers care?
The Sony A9 III is spectacularly good in a very small market populated by cameras which are also extremely good. Some journalists are saying it changes everything. That’s just clickbait. I say it changes some things in a relatively small way which won’t matter to everyone.