been following the a93 as an interest on tech and things just havnt been adding up. probably why no proper reviews from the big names have surfaced yet. this is a comment form the comment section after watching the engadget review.
quote " I am returning mine after 5 days of use ! this camera is definitely not for flash photography/ studio ! first of all shutter speed goes at max at 16000 shutter speed at multiple mode shoot only. 80000 shutter speed is only in single mode shoot! color shits are all along those variable speeds you need to sync flash manually in order to shoot with variable shutter speed,and it's time consuming, and i suspect that its still not accurate and it might be the reason for power color shits strength light intensity inaccuracy .Another issue is the noise and Aperture change at values like f8 noise is so big and noticeable that it makes picture not usable bottom line its a real downer on photography side but videography is definitely a big high"
LGBTQIL " Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, & Intersex Life", Im old fastion "gay" is easier 😁 if you want to spell everything out knock yourself out 😉
What doesn't add up? The fact that a person who commented under a video couldn't figure out the acknowledged complexities of flash sync at superfast shutter speeds doesn't mean much. The same goes for the comments about noise, which is the result of the camera's higher base ISO. Buyers are supposed to educate themselves about a product before pressing the PLACE ORDER button.
Who are the big names you're waiting to hear from?
All of them, not one has reviewed a production camera. flash sync was and is just a con imop who doesnt shoot godox ad 100,200,300,400,600 for events now, no one uses a standard flash which is still the same anyway as the a93 lowest iso is 250. and besides that any run and gun event wedding photog can not miss a shot trying to set a suitable flash duration setting on the fly. ive never had a problem with HSS in the first place. and to be honest you get a more natural result using fill and final lift in post which cameras like the a7iv are top of the range for.
What a great non-answer. I have no idea who you're talking about.
Your own opinion about the camera's features was made clear in your first post (by quoting the similar opinion of an unknown entity) ... and that's all it is. Nothing more to see here.
My experience has nothing to do with this, and neither does yours, and neither does your personal list of 'big names' who haven't reviewed the camera. This is about understanding what the technology can and can't do, and relating those things to a particular job that's to be accomplished. It's not even hard.
It took me one minute to find this video review by two guys with many years of shooting and reviewing experience. They explain exactly what every potential buyer ought to know about the technology - what the limitations of global shutter flash sync are - how base ISO 250 influences results - and why it's great for some work and not great for others - before being oblivious by pressing the PLACE ORDER button first and end up returning the camera after five days.
these guys are far from run and gun event photographers. sales is there game. they review cameras not shoot high-end weddings and events on a time limit.
saying that you cant shoot a mechanical shutter with flash at 1/4000 sec was a total laugh.
If I thought you would get it, I would explain to you that every 'professional' camera review is about money. Nobody out there expends the time and effort to conduct and present a review unless it connects to money - usually in the form of advertising. That's what these guys, who work for PetaPixel are doing: selling advertising. Or maybe you know of somebody who does camera reviews professionally with the expectation of getting nothing in return.
Despite your misunderstanding, these two guys know what they're talking about. The video spells out pretty clearly that this is not a camera that wedding or event or studio photographers are going to care about. But others such as sports and wildlife photographers and videographers could care quite a bit about it for their work.
That's what I would explain to you if I thought you would get it.
You can't get real sync from a conventional mechanical focal plane shutter at that speed. You can only get HSS or HyperSync. All of us know that. Imagining that you know more about this subject than those two guys is what's laughable.
I really should have know better than to waste any time with this.
agree you shouldnt involve yourself if you dont know the answers.
Quote from Fstoppers.
As it is now, what you have to do is take a photo, adjust the timing, then take another photo. You repeat this until you get to peak brightness and then start to see the brightness drop back off. You then know where the peak is, and you're good to go. The problem is that adjustment to the shutter speed or the flash power can affect this timing, causing you to have to start the process all over again. But it's important to mention that I was also testing a beta version of the camera, and after a few conversations about this process with Sony reps, I’m hopeful that this process will get streamlined before the cameras start shipping. The way I feel this should work is that you could press a button or menu item to start a trigger measurement, then the camera takes a 120 fps burst and can then use that sequence to figure out which image has the highest brightness and then auto-adjust the timing. You would still need access to manually adjust the timing for instances where the auto adjustment doesn't work, but I think this process would speed things up as well as let you not fill up your memory card by repeatedly taking test images. But, even if this process doesn't change at all, I still think the hassle is worth the ability this unlocks.
i have also been in contact with a a93 owner doing tests for me. 120 fps for 1.6 secs 192 images takes 12 secs to clear compressed raw files , no better than the a1, i have asked for continuous frames per sec without reaching buffer end.
Your grammar is too nebulous for me to know exactly what you're saying, but if you are basing a "con" on a 3rd-party flash, then no, it is not a con if it works right with Sony flashes. Timing becomes very critical when you time-crop a full-length flash pulse. Sony may have been looking to the future of global shutters and time-cropping full flash when they designed their most recent flashes. Sony knows the shape of the pulse over time of their own flashes, and can place the exposure window in ideal locations.
HSS is a joke compared to how Sony claims their flashes work on the A9-III. I took the liberty of converting Sony's guide numbers for 50mm coverage at ISO 100 with the A9-III with two of Sony's flashes to a different metric that shows absolute flash strength at various shutter speeds, which would determine flash-vs-ambient exposure potential (HSS is that paltry power at the bottom of the graph):
Where does the Fstoppers quote end? You didn't use bold, or italic, or quotation marks.
You could probably get away with this with a very fast rolling shutter, like the one rumored in the Canon R1, with 1/1250 sync officially (which has to be a truncated pulse, 1/2 or 1/4 power, because a full one can't fit there, even if the shutter were global). With a very fast rolling shutter, and full pulse length, there will be some uneven exposure down the frame, but it should be small enough to ignore at some shutter speeds. For those triggering manual exposure and the full flash pulse external to the camera and dictating what part of the pulse results in exposure, they may get some better results than with old mechanical shutters. For very fast rolling shutters, they might want to time the offsets more for even exposure than maximum exposure, even if it can't be perfectly even. The rise before the flash peak and the fall after it are not symmetrical, so centering on the peak will not result in the most even exposure, but rather, with the peak a bit later than the middle of exposure time.
Timing would be critical if you want maximum power, but as long as you're including the peak, and aren't exposing during periods of low flash power, you will get much higher flash-to-ambient ratios with time-cropping of full camera pulses. It would be rolling shutters that would have the most limitations with time-cropping the full pulse, and the most potential for uneven exposure down the frame.
Of course, strobing venue lights are dead to banding with a rolling shutter, in any stable or relatively stable scene. Someone whipping a white fishing rod against a black background, of course, would still get banded by strobing lights, and there's nothing you can ever do for that except to change the lighting.
my test was a real life test i just set my camera to 1/8000 sec connected my ad 100 pro via a wireless trigger shot a selfie via remote with the sun directly behind me in HSS the flash didnt even work up a sweat. and btw i shoot groups as well try that with a sony flash and 10 people 😁 iso 100 which i can also drop to extended iso 64, against 16,000 max at iso 250 because the a93 cant sync higher with a 1.2 lens.
this is how you shoot a back lit sun image NO FLASH
