The "Global Shutter"

[dmanthree]

Now that Sony has broken that ground, will Canon also offer one in their yet to be announced R1? I know some older cameras had one, but those were CCD sensors of much lower resolution.

[Mark Keefer]

I had to look this one up, I have not been in the market for a new camera for a while and have not been keeping.

I viewed this LINK.  

Wow, I often thought why didn't cameras have this.  

It would be cool, especially if photographing from a moving vehicle. (as a passenger of course) The rubber band effect is a draw back.

 

I would think Canon will have to introduce it.

[dmanthree]

2 hours ago, Mark Keefer said:

I had to look this one up, I have not been in the market for a new camera for a while and have not been keeping.

I viewed this LINK.  

Wow, I often thought why didn't cameras have this.  

It would be cool, especially if photographing from a moving vehicle. (as a passenger of course) The rubber band effect is a draw back.

 

I would think Canon will have to introduce it.

 

Most cams don't have it because it's exceedingly difficult to implement. *If* it works as advertised and there's no penalty for image quality it can change quite a few things. I'm curious about any impact in IQ, whether or not the sensor will heat up, what flash sync will look like at high shutter speeds, etc. I think in time all good digicams will have thie.

[Ken Katz]

The new Sony seems like a significant step forward in performance for digital cameras.  No more banding, or motion distortion, 1/80,000 max shutter speed, 120 max FPS (1.6 second bursts), and flash sync at all shutter speeds (though flash power would be reduced if the shutter is faster than the flash duration).  Don't think there have been any image quality tests, but base ISO is 250 and its a 24mp camera, perhaps reflecting some limitations in current technology, or that the camera was aimed at sports/reportage usage.

I am not in the market for anything like this, but it is certainly a significant milestone.  It is unclear when Sony will allow other manufacturers to use this tech, but Canon sure should be working on their version.  I would expect a Canon R3 mkii would have it before it ends up in the purported flagship R1.

[Mark Keefer]

On 11/10/2023 at 6:46 PM, Ken Katz said:

Don't think there have been any image quality tests, but base ISO is 250 and its a 24mp camera, perhaps reflecting some limitations in current technology, or that the camera was aimed at sports/reportage usage

Better ISO will probably be a selling point for a future generation of camera to lure consumers to to part with their money. That and higher resolution.

Global shutter is cool and will have it's uses like any other tool. I am curious what the impact of base ISO 250 will be. With shutter speed up to 1/80,000th I would imagine you could still use a fast lense wide open in bright sun.

For me personally, I can't say the rubber band effect has ruined a lot of shots, but I am not a big golf or baseball photographer. Grain free images are more important for me. With the cameras of the last 5 years or so, even ISO of 3200 isn't bad. And with the new AI noise reduction software in post I have been able to get nice images at much higher ISO.

As far as Canon not having global shutter, that feature wouldn't be a high priority as compared to other features.

I know this is Canon Rumors, but if they are correct, Canon won't have the feature on the next generation cameras. It isn't a deal breaker for me.  Here is a Link. 

[Ken Katz]

A higher base ISO makes it more difficult to shoot at slower shutter speeds, though a 24mp FF costing $6K would not be the best Sony to use for landscapes.  Canon has not yet made a mirrorless camera without a mechanical shutter, so perhaps that is what the next generation will have.  I do not need such capabilities, but I would expect that Canon views Sony as it's chief competitor, and it is yet unclear how global shutter tech will be a factor.

In the current PN world, if this new camera was a Nikon, there would already be over 100 postings to this thread.

[paddler4]

It's a huge step forward for people whose photography entails a lot of very fast moving stuff. It's a step backwards for many of the rest of us. It solves a problem I have never had and is likely to have significant downsides.

There have been several interesting articles about this on the web. The likely tradeoff is smaller dynamic range and inferior low-light performance because the additional electronics will create smaller photosites. The high base ISO is a minus, not a plus. In addition to the inconvenience of not having a lower ISO, this is probably the flip side of the design issues that will reduce dynamic range. So I would wait for real-world tests before getting too excited about what this means for the camera market generally.