Global Shutter, how important is it to you?

donaldejose

Now that Sony is out with a global shutter for a price premium of about $4,000.00 and we know Nikon either buys sensors from Sony or has Sony manufacture their sensor designs we know Nikon could buy a global shutter from Sony and put it into one of their Z bodies. It probably would add $4,000.00 to the current price of that body (so a $9,000.00 Z9 with a 24 megapixel global shutter - a new D3x?). We still need to see what dynamic range and noise that Sony sensor produces before we know what, if any, tradeoffs we would have to make to get a global shutter. In my opinion a global shutter would be great because of options it offers as long as there are no downside tradeoffs. But I have no need or desired use case for which I would be willing to pay an additional $4,000.00. Do you? What are your thoughts?

mhedges

I'd consider it once the software is developed to really take full advantage. Meaning in-camera image stacking and lots of other stuff that a global shutter enables.

donaldejose

Taking full advantage of it may need more than software. It may need huge processing power (like using at least two Expeed 7 processors or more) and a huge buffer (or large internal SSD). We may be a generation or two (like 4 to 6 years) away from such hardware being available at reasonable cost.

WestEndFoto

donaldejose said:

Taking full advantage of it may need more than software. It may need huge processing power (like using at least two Expeed 7 processors or more) and a huge buffer (or large internal SSD). We may be a generation or two (like 4 to 6 years) away from such hardware being available at reasonable cost.

The important difference between a rolling shutter and global shutter is that the each pixel on the rolling shutter sends the data directly to Expeed. The pixel on the global shutter is saved until its turn to be sent to Expeed comes up. This ability to save means that all the pixels can be exposed at the same time.

The readout speed might otherwise not be any different. This impact on the imaging pipeline after the sensor might be negligible.

mhedges

I think eventually cameras will have global shutter and the standard exposure mode will be to sample at some very high rate then stack the images as needed to achieve the desired exposure. That will require a lot of processing power and data buffer.

photobunny

For wildlife the stacked sensor is silent and flawless. For sports with LED lighting I would almost require the global shutter now as this fixes the shutterless cameras Achilles heel.

So for me the global shutter is irrelevant since foxes don't run in front of marketing LED signs. If I was a sports shooter I would actually be considering buying a A9 III even if Sony don't have the 100-300 f/2.8.

donaldejose

I too have not yet seen the need. I have mostly been shooting landscape, wildlife and portraits. No fast action sports or auto racing. Maybe someday I will desire a global shutter, but not now and not at a $4,000.00 premium. Also, what's up with the base ISO at 250? In the past lower base ISO, such as 64, equated with more dynamic range. Does higher base ISO equate with lower dynamic range? We will have to wait for the detailed reviews of production bodies.

ggbutcher

I've shot a few theater/church venues, and lighting can be a pain. The Z series has some decent mitigators, but that's what they are, accommodations to a non-instantaneous capture. Global shutter would eliminate the need for all that.

WestEndFoto

donaldejose said:

I too have not yet seen the need. I have mostly been shooting landscape, wildlife and portraits. No fast action sports or auto racing. Maybe someday I will desire a global shutter, but not now and not at a $4,000.00 premium. Also, what's up with the base ISO at 250? In the past lower base ISO, such as 64, equated with more dynamic range. Does higher base ISO equate with lower dynamic range? We will have to wait for the detailed reviews of production bodies.

Yeah, Sony always seems to push the envelope and often qualify their achievements to the point where an achievement is not really an achievement anymore.

That said, if ISO is 250 plus, then Sony is not positioning this camera as "high IQ" but as "video and sports/action/news/events". I have no use for that.

WestEndFoto

photobunny said:

For wildlife the stacked sensor is silent and flawless. For sports with LED lighting I would almost require the global shutter now as this fixes the shutterless cameras Achilles heel.

So for me the global shutter is irrelevant since foxes don't run in front of marketing LED signs. If I was a sports shooter I would actually be considering buying a A9 III even if Sony don't have the 100-300 f/2.8.

There are certainly issues in unique lighting situations. I deal with that just by setting fps to 20 (or 15 if I don't want to fill the buffer) and finding a good picture in post. I always get a good shot this way and this also mitigates other issues. For example. a group portrait with 20 people. There is almost always a blinker. But almost is not always and with 20 fps for 4 seconds there will always be a few to choose from. And with a 660gb CFExpress card, I never have to worry about running out of space. That card's capacity is a little over 13,000 lossless compressed.

NSXTypeR

I saw a lot of rolling shutter when I was trying to shoot Mt Fuji from the shinkansen with my smartphone (Samsung S22) when it was rolling past the Japanese countryside at 170 mph. I don't often do that so I see a use case where a global shutter might be useful. I did shoot Mt Fuji with my Sony RX100 and the D7500 and it didn't get much rolling shutter so it worked out.

photobunny

A correction to an earlier post: The global shutter doesn't stop LED light banding. That still requires the camera to intelligently kick of the shutter at the brightest point.

donaldejose

Looks like Canon isn't going to offer a body with a global shutter soon. Once a production Sony global shutter body is out and reviewed we may find there are too many compromises at this stage of the global sensor technology.

WestEndFoto

NSXTypeR said:

I saw a lot of rolling shutter when I was trying to shoot Mt Fuji from the shinkansen with my smartphone (Samsung S22) when it was rolling past the Japanese countryside at 170 mph. I don't often do that so I see a use case where a global shutter might be useful. I did shoot Mt Fuji with my Sony RX100 and the D7500 and it didn't get much rolling shutter so it worked out.

The Z8 or Z9 would both solve this problem in this situation based on my experience. The faster the rolling shutter, the more indistinguishable from a global shutter it becomes. Plus if I had to choose between a really fast rolling shutter and a global shutter that wasn't fast (this is the kind of choice you might have to make if you didn't have unlimited funds), I would pick fast as it would mean improved AF performance.

Remember, a global shutter is not necessarily fast. It is just "simultaneous". You still need to get the data off the sensor.

On another note, flying by Mr. Fuji on the Shinkansen is a bucket list item in its own right.

donaldejose

It's looking like global shutter image quality is about like stepping down to a crop sensor body. Interesting.

WestEndFoto

It looks like it might be a bit of a niche and/or take a while to develop.

donaldejose

GS made an initial "bang" and "wow" in photo news but it is turning out to not be something to lust after or abandon Nikon for not having at this time. Meanwhile Nikon's free firmware updates have turned the Nikon Z9 and Z8 into Northrups Camera of the Year for 2023. see the end of this video.