A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
p.5 #1A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
RoamingScott wrote:
Modern lenses like the 85/1.2 have an insane T-stop and VERY little vignette wide open and don't follow the rule at all.Nobody is hung up on the Sunny 16 rule.Every other post in the last page has been how the Sunny 16 rule says this shouldn't be needed, including yours.
Have YOU shot the 85/1.2? I have. Nick has.
Read my post and don't misread it. I never said it shouldn't be needed and explicitly said otherwise. I took the sunny 16 rule as a baseline approximation of exposure and specifically acknowledged the right exposure could be different. When you criticize don't mischaracterize. That is what you are doing here.
Edit: No I have not shot the Nikon 85 f/1.2. It wasn't even made when I last shot Nikon (I had the Z7 so it was a few years ago, but less than 5). And by the way, I tried to be careful to both thank Nick for his post and his experience and to respect that experience. At the same time, I was also arguing that further testing on this issue to know just when 1/8000 will be limiting and will not be limiting would be a good thing. Until that testing is done, however, it will be a bit of a gray area.
Steve Spencer wrote
RoamingScott wrote
Y'all need to stop being so hung up on the Sunny 16 rule, which was derived in a time of very heavily vignetting lenses.Modern lenses like the 85/1.2 have an insane T-stop and VERY little vignette wide open and don't follow the rule at all.
Have YOU shot the 85/1.2? I have. Nick has.
Read my post and don't misread it. I never said it shouldn't be needed and explicitly said otherwise. I took the sunny 16 rule as a baseline approximation of exposure and specifically acknowledged the right exposure could be different. When you criticize don't mischaracterize. That is what you are doing here.
Edit: No I have not shot the Nikon 85 f/1.2. It wasn't even made when I last shot Nikon (I had the Z7 so it was a few years ago, but less than 5). And by the way, I tried to be careful to both thank Nick for his post and his experience and to respect that experience. At the same time, I was also arguing that further testing on this issue to know just when 1/8000 will be limiting and will not be limiting would be a good thing. Until that testing is done, however, it will be a bit of a gray area.
Jul 13, 2026 at 09:37 AM
p.5 #2A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
This is turning into one of those bizarre threads in which two groups don’t seem to be able to see past their own biases, and take that as a launching pad to call the other guy an idiot.
Can we agree that:
1. Some people have a legitimate need (or at least find value in) shutter speeds faster than 1/8000 second.
2. Most people do not have a need for shutter speeds that high.
3. If you need a faster shutter speed there are cameras that can provide it.
4. If you don’t need a faster shutter speed, this is an insignificant issue for your camera selection.
5. For some, the occasional use of a ND filter will be a better option that buying a more expensive Sony camera with a faster shutter speed.
See, it isn’t that hard.
By the way, I don’t think anyone is _recommending_ the use of the old-school “sunny 16 rule” — just using it as a convenient shorthand to think about exposure needs. In truth, there are situations in which even those who might apply that rule will need a faster shutter speed, such as a subject with a lot of very bright highlights that warrant a shorter exposure.
Is anyone else as tired of the continuous insult-slinging by a subset of posters around here? Is it not possible to discuss an issue rationally around here any more?
Can we agree that:
1. Some people have a legitimate need (or at least find value in) shutter speeds faster than 1/8000 second.
2. Most people do not have a need for shutter speeds that high.
3. If you need a faster shutter speed there are cameras that can provide it.
4. If you don’t need a faster shutter speed, this is an insignificant issue for your camera selection.
5. For some, the occasional use of a ND filter will be a better option that buying a more expensive Sony camera with a faster shutter speed.
See, it isn’t that hard.
By the way, I don’t think anyone is _recommending_ the use of the old-school “sunny 16 rule” — just using it as a convenient shorthand to think about exposure needs. In truth, there are situations in which even those who might apply that rule will need a faster shutter speed, such as a subject with a lot of very bright highlights that warrant a shorter exposure.
Is anyone else as tired of the continuous insult-slinging by a subset of posters around here? Is it not possible to discuss an issue rationally around here any more?
Jul 13, 2026 at 09:57 AM
p.5 #3A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
Facts.
IF you shoot an f1.2 lens wide open in a daylight setting, you will need one of two things and probably want both for separate reasons/situations -- and they are:
1) a shutter speed of 1/32,000th* for ISO 100 and 1/16,000th for ISO 50/64 base cameras; AND/OR
2) a 3-stop ND filter for said lens.
*Caveat: Some locations are actually brighter than Sunny 16 by a full stop *or more*. Notably Southern latitude regions in clear air conditions like Phoenix or San Antonio or Santa Fe; or high altitude locations in clear air like the Sierra Nevadas or Colorado Rockies. So here, even a desire for 1/128,000th could be justified... (Hence my condition above for including the 3-stop ND filter in addition to the 1/32,000th shutter speed.)
PS:
gdanmitchell wrote:
Is anyone else as tired of the continuous insult-slinging by a subset of posters around here? Is it not possible to discuss an issue rationally around here any more?
Dan, while I agree with your main points, I think discussion about the reasons why some folks want or even feel the need for more than 1/8000th is definitely worthwhile -- even though it may be a bit more spirited than it needs to be
Edited on Jul 13, 2026 at 10:46 AM · View previous versions
IF you shoot an f1.2 lens wide open in a daylight setting, you will need one of two things and probably want both for separate reasons/situations -- and they are:
1) a shutter speed of 1/32,000th* for ISO 100 and 1/16,000th for ISO 50/64 base cameras; AND/OR
2) a 3-stop ND filter for said lens.
*Caveat: Some locations are actually brighter than Sunny 16 by a full stop *or more*. Notably Southern latitude regions in clear air conditions like Phoenix or San Antonio or Santa Fe; or high altitude locations in clear air like the Sierra Nevadas or Colorado Rockies. So here, even a desire for 1/128,000th could be justified... (Hence my condition above for including the 3-stop ND filter in addition to the 1/32,000th shutter speed.)
PS:
gdanmitchell wrote:
Is anyone else as tired of the continuous insult-slinging by a subset of posters around here? Is it not possible to discuss an issue rationally around here any more?
Dan, while I agree with your main points, I think discussion about the reasons why some folks want or even feel the need for more than 1/8000th is definitely worthwhile -- even though it may be a bit more spirited than it needs to be
Edited on Jul 13, 2026 at 10:46 AM · View previous versions
Jul 13, 2026 at 10:13 AM
p.5 #4A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
Donzo98 wrote:
I was very surprised to see the max shutter speed was only 1/8000 even in electronic shutter. I don't see many posts that mention it...
I have needed more than 1/8000 occasionally.... and I was happy to have up to 1/32000 on my A1/II.
Does this bother anyone??
Doesn't bother me.
From my catalog, and just counting photos from my A9 and A1, only 1.2% where shot at > 1/8000
Most of these were my daughter competing at beach volleyball. If I were doing that with my A7RVI, I would just use an ND or CPL or stop down but she doesn't compete anymore so I don't have to worry about it.
A handful were portraits in full sun at f/1.2. Same solution.
If I was a pro, then I'd shoot the A1II.
I was very surprised to see the max shutter speed was only 1/8000 even in electronic shutter. I don't see many posts that mention it...
I have needed more than 1/8000 occasionally.... and I was happy to have up to 1/32000 on my A1/II.
Does this bother anyone??
Doesn't bother me.
From my catalog, and just counting photos from my A9 and A1, only 1.2% where shot at > 1/8000
Most of these were my daughter competing at beach volleyball. If I were doing that with my A7RVI, I would just use an ND or CPL or stop down but she doesn't compete anymore so I don't have to worry about it.
A handful were portraits in full sun at f/1.2. Same solution.
If I was a pro, then I'd shoot the A1II.
Jul 13, 2026 at 10:26 AM
p.5 #5A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks for this example. It is helpful. Can I ask what camera you were using and the ISO on those shots? I ask because most Nikon cameras have a base ISO of 64, which should get you by the sunny 16 rule shutter speed a good exposure even with f/1.4 lens at 1/8000. So if you were shooting over 1/8000 and ISO 64 I am wondering why the camera was selecting such a high shutter speed. Maybe all the faster shutter speeds were all with the 85 f/1.2. Then there is the question of what would have happened if...Show more →
ISO 64 for all but 3 of them. Camera was set to highlight metering with +.3 EV. Most of the higher speed shots were with the 28mm 1.4 @1.4 shot low and some of that is the camera protecting the sky, but not always. Sometimes it's just sweaty runners in bright spots and the camera is protecting spectral highlights that I definitely want it to retain to be able to keep textures. None of the shots are crazy underexposed. But that ISO 64 is giving me 2/3rds of a stop over the A7RVI's ISO 100. For the Z8, at ISO 64, I really need to be looking at any shots at or over 1/6400th as being potentially overexposed on the A7RVI. In that case, we're talking 75 of those 230 shots needing an ND. And just to reiterate, that's sun at 6:30ish PM, not noon.
I bought the A7RVI knowing this. It's just an odd choice by Sony. Anything shot at 1.2 at 1/8000 is usually likely recoverable (although my experience so far is that the A7RVI doesn't have as much highlight recovery as some other cameras), but giving users one more stop to 1/16000 would have made a ton of sense if the sensor can do it. Why not? There will be times 1.2 lenses need an ND with this camera or will have to stop down. I own the aforementioned Voightlander f1, but admit that's a fringe case. A 50mm 1.2 GM in daylight isn't. I'm not bashing Sony at all. Maybe there is some technical reason the camera still can't beat the A7RV's shutter speeds in ES, but on paper, it definitely seems like a deliberate choice rather than a technical limitation.
The A9iii had a similar situation at its release, but that seemed to be more of a real technical limitation. The base ISO was 250, but 1.2 lenses capped out at 1/16,000th. I've not used one since then, but I think Sony actually addressed that with firmware and got the max shutter speed up for fast lenses. I very much doubt we will get an A7RVI update to increase the max ES to 1/16,000 so threads like this are good to inform potential buyers. Similarly, the rolling shutter is VERY real for this camera, and will show up in panning and side tracking shots.
Thanks for this example. It is helpful. Can I ask what camera you were using and the ISO on those shots? I ask because most Nikon cameras have a base ISO of 64, which should get you by the sunny 16 rule shutter speed a good exposure even with f/1.4 lens at 1/8000. So if you were shooting over 1/8000 and ISO 64 I am wondering why the camera was selecting such a high shutter speed. Maybe all the faster shutter speeds were all with the 85 f/1.2. Then there is the question of what would have happened if...Show more →
ISO 64 for all but 3 of them. Camera was set to highlight metering with +.3 EV. Most of the higher speed shots were with the 28mm 1.4 @1.4 shot low and some of that is the camera protecting the sky, but not always. Sometimes it's just sweaty runners in bright spots and the camera is protecting spectral highlights that I definitely want it to retain to be able to keep textures. None of the shots are crazy underexposed. But that ISO 64 is giving me 2/3rds of a stop over the A7RVI's ISO 100. For the Z8, at ISO 64, I really need to be looking at any shots at or over 1/6400th as being potentially overexposed on the A7RVI. In that case, we're talking 75 of those 230 shots needing an ND. And just to reiterate, that's sun at 6:30ish PM, not noon.
I bought the A7RVI knowing this. It's just an odd choice by Sony. Anything shot at 1.2 at 1/8000 is usually likely recoverable (although my experience so far is that the A7RVI doesn't have as much highlight recovery as some other cameras), but giving users one more stop to 1/16000 would have made a ton of sense if the sensor can do it. Why not? There will be times 1.2 lenses need an ND with this camera or will have to stop down. I own the aforementioned Voightlander f1, but admit that's a fringe case. A 50mm 1.2 GM in daylight isn't. I'm not bashing Sony at all. Maybe there is some technical reason the camera still can't beat the A7RV's shutter speeds in ES, but on paper, it definitely seems like a deliberate choice rather than a technical limitation.
The A9iii had a similar situation at its release, but that seemed to be more of a real technical limitation. The base ISO was 250, but 1.2 lenses capped out at 1/16,000th. I've not used one since then, but I think Sony actually addressed that with firmware and got the max shutter speed up for fast lenses. I very much doubt we will get an A7RVI update to increase the max ES to 1/16,000 so threads like this are good to inform potential buyers. Similarly, the rolling shutter is VERY real for this camera, and will show up in panning and side tracking shots.
Jul 13, 2026 at 11:02 AM
p.5 #6A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
I'm not a professional but when I shoot, it's usually a run and gun situation. Many times, I'll be on vacation at a sunny beach with the sun reflecting off the water and I'd be reacting to my daughter running around. I don't always have the luxury of setting up the shot as I want candids. In those situations, I shoot a lot but it isn't the quantity of keepers that drives my efforts but rather the quality of keepers. I didn't know I wanted it until I used it. But to each his own.
Jul 13, 2026 at 11:04 AM
p.5 #7A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
nhmorgan wrote:
It is indeed an interesting real world example. We know that of the 230 images, for just a little more than 80% the camera selected a shutter speed of 1/8000 or less and presumably these turned out ok. What we don't know is in that just less than 20% of shots if the shutter speed maxed out at 1/8000 and the camera was forced to select that shutter speed would the shots have been ruined or even affected much. We all know our cameras have some head room in the highlights and we can at times push them farther than the camera would select for shutter speed. Sometimes we do that intentionally when we shoot in manual mode or use exposure compensation. Sometimes our choice of exposure is even a better choice than the camera makes. It seems likely that you would not have lost all the shots or even had all of them effected in a meaningful way if the camera had a max 1/8000 when the camera picked a higher shutter speed. Just how many would have been affected negatively, however, is probably hard to determine after the fact. It could be sorted out in testing, however. Maybe someone will do that.
For me, it would be a non-issue because I prefer to shoot my f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses at f/2 when the light is bright. So a lot of this comes down to style and preference for how you shoot. I am not saying that this won't be an issue for anyone. If you shoot f/1.2 and f/1.4 lens wide open in bright light a lot and you don't want to use ND filters it could be an issue for you. I am saying, however, that for me it would never be an issue.ISO 64 for all but 3 of them. Camera was set to highlight metering with +.3 EV. Most of the higher speed shots were with the 28mm 1.4 @1.4 shot low and some of that is the camera protecting the sky, but not always. Sometimes it's just sweaty runners in bright spots and the camera is protecting spectral highlights that I definitely want it to retain to be able to keep textures. None of the shots are crazy underexposed. But that ISO 64 is giving me 2/3rds of a stop over the A7RVI's ISO 100. For the Z8, at ISO...Show more →
Nick, thanks for this helpful post. I don't know if the 1/8000 is a technical limit or not. It is clear that for you, in shoots like the one you described a faster electronic shutter would be useful. I don't know if the high resolution sensor that is capable of DGO processing (that part is relatively new) has some limits. It is odd that the A7 5 can shoot 1/16,000 in electronic mode and this camera can only shoot 1/8,000. Since this camera is essentially double the resolution, that is processing the same number of pixels over the same length of time, but the lower level camera still has a better capability than the higher level camera. My guess is that it is a technical limitation, but that is only a guess and I make that guess for two reasons. First, Sony typically has not held back features of cameras to create market segmentation. Second, if they held back a feature they could have implemented, then I would have expected them to do so for the A7 5 as well. That said, I really am only guessing.
From a bigger picture perspective this camera does a lot and does a lot in electronic shutter mode. You will face limits at the edge of performance. The max shutter speed is lower than other cameras in Sony's line. The sensor scan speed is lower than for the A1 series and the A9 series, which means you can get some movement distortion. Nevertheless it can still handle bright light well and can handle fast action well. The electronic shutter works for these things quite often and when it doesn't you can work around that by using ND filters or stopping down when the light is too bright, and using the mechanical shutter when the action is too fast.
Steve Spencer wrote
Thanks for this example. It is helpful. Can I ask what camera you were using and the ISO on those shots? I ask because most Nikon cameras have a base ISO of 64, which should get you by the sunny 16 rule shutter speed a good exposure even with f/1.4 lens at 1/8000. So if you were shooting over 1/8000 and ISO 64 I am wondering why the camera was selecting such a high shutter speed. Maybe all the faster shutter speeds were all with the 85 f/1.2. Then there is the question of what would have happened if you had set the shutter speed to 1/8000 and kept the aperture wide open using manual. Would any important highlights have been blown or would the shots turned out fine just exposed a bit to the right?It is indeed an interesting real world example. We know that of the 230 images, for just a little more than 80% the camera selected a shutter speed of 1/8000 or less and presumably these turned out ok. What we don't know is in that just less than 20% of shots if the shutter speed maxed out at 1/8000 and the camera was forced to select that shutter speed would the shots have been ruined or even affected much. We all know our cameras have some head room in the highlights and we can at times push them farther than the camera would select for shutter speed. Sometimes we do that intentionally when we shoot in manual mode or use exposure compensation. Sometimes our choice of exposure is even a better choice than the camera makes. It seems likely that you would not have lost all the shots or even had all of them effected in a meaningful way if the camera had a max 1/8000 when the camera picked a higher shutter speed. Just how many would have been affected negatively, however, is probably hard to determine after the fact. It could be sorted out in testing, however. Maybe someone will do that.
For me, it would be a non-issue because I prefer to shoot my f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses at f/2 when the light is bright. So a lot of this comes down to style and preference for how you shoot. I am not saying that this won't be an issue for anyone. If you shoot f/1.2 and f/1.4 lens wide open in bright light a lot and you don't want to use ND filters it could be an issue for you. I am saying, however, that for me it would never be an issue.
Nick, thanks for this helpful post. I don't know if the 1/8000 is a technical limit or not. It is clear that for you, in shoots like the one you described a faster electronic shutter would be useful. I don't know if the high resolution sensor that is capable of DGO processing (that part is relatively new) has some limits. It is odd that the A7 5 can shoot 1/16,000 in electronic mode and this camera can only shoot 1/8,000. Since this camera is essentially double the resolution, that is processing the same number of pixels over the same length of time, but the lower level camera still has a better capability than the higher level camera. My guess is that it is a technical limitation, but that is only a guess and I make that guess for two reasons. First, Sony typically has not held back features of cameras to create market segmentation. Second, if they held back a feature they could have implemented, then I would have expected them to do so for the A7 5 as well. That said, I really am only guessing.
From a bigger picture perspective this camera does a lot and does a lot in electronic shutter mode. You will face limits at the edge of performance. The max shutter speed is lower than other cameras in Sony's line. The sensor scan speed is lower than for the A1 series and the A9 series, which means you can get some movement distortion. Nevertheless it can still handle bright light well and can handle fast action well. The electronic shutter works for these things quite often and when it doesn't you can work around that by using ND filters or stopping down when the light is too bright, and using the mechanical shutter when the action is too fast.
Jul 13, 2026 at 01:04 PM
p.5 #8A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
Living in Colorado, I always use filters. I carry them for every lens diameter I am carrying. Its just what has to be done. And in this bright place and at this altitude, I get as low of a transmission of CPL I can get. Never needed an ND filter for normal exposures. Longer exposures, sure. But a good, dark CPL will do wonders.
Jul 13, 2026 at 03:23 PM
p.5 #9A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
I find CPLs knock fine color separation and flatten highlights a little in the Himalaya, and cost me stops. So I don't use them. For the odd 1/8000s, I just give the lens a third or half stop down, practical slacker that I have become.
Sony have been using 1/8000s since the start of the venture into full frame - 2008's a900, when I bought mine. The succeeding a99V does best at ISO 50 (SLT). I imagine they have not had too many complaints in the 18 years since that time. Up until now, of course.
Sony have been using 1/8000s since the start of the venture into full frame - 2008's a900, when I bought mine. The succeeding a99V does best at ISO 50 (SLT). I imagine they have not had too many complaints in the 18 years since that time. Up until now, of course.
Jul 15, 2026 at 12:49 AM
p.5 #10A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
philip_pj wrote:
I find CPLs knock fine color separation and flatten highlights a little in the Himalaya, and cost me stops. So I don't use them. For the odd 1/8000s, I just give the lens a third or half stop down, practical slacker that I have become.
Sony have been using 1/8000s since the start of the venture into full frame - 2008's a900, when I bought mine. The succeeding a99V does best at ISO 50 (SLT). I imagine they have not had too many complaints in the 18 years since that time. Up until now, of course.
Except, their stacked sensors since their very first have been higher- 1/32,000 with the ancient A9.
I find CPLs knock fine color separation and flatten highlights a little in the Himalaya, and cost me stops. So I don't use them. For the odd 1/8000s, I just give the lens a third or half stop down, practical slacker that I have become.
Sony have been using 1/8000s since the start of the venture into full frame - 2008's a900, when I bought mine. The succeeding a99V does best at ISO 50 (SLT). I imagine they have not had too many complaints in the 18 years since that time. Up until now, of course.
Except, their stacked sensors since their very first have been higher- 1/32,000 with the ancient A9.
Jul 15, 2026 at 02:57 AM
|
p.5 #11A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
TheEmrys wrote:
Living in Colorado, I always use filters. I carry them for every lens diameter I am carrying. Its just what has to be done. And in this bright place and at this altitude, I get as low of a transmission of CPL I can get. Never needed an ND filter for normal exposures. Longer exposures, sure. But a good, dark CPL will do wonders.
Again, with stacked sensors, it isn't what has to be done. 1/32,000 since the A9.
Living in Colorado, I always use filters. I carry them for every lens diameter I am carrying. Its just what has to be done. And in this bright place and at this altitude, I get as low of a transmission of CPL I can get. Never needed an ND filter for normal exposures. Longer exposures, sure. But a good, dark CPL will do wonders.
Again, with stacked sensors, it isn't what has to be done. 1/32,000 since the A9.
Jul 15, 2026 at 02:58 AM
p.5 #12A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
shadow9d9 wrote:
TheEmrys wrote
Living in Colorado, I always use filters. I carry them for every lens diameter I am carrying. Its just what has to be done. And in this bright place and at this altitude, I get as low of a transmission of CPL I can get. Never needed an ND filter for normal exposures. Longer exposures, sure. But a good, dark CPL will do wonders.It's more that they offer a pretty big advantage in color in very bright light. Why wouldn't you use one, unless you are shooting UWA? And given it's 1-2 stop transmission reduction, it would alleviate the biggest complaint. It would be particularly beneficial in the example image given.
Jul 15, 2026 at 06:25 AM
p.5 #13A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
shadow9d9 wrote:
TheEmrys wrote
Living in Colorado, I always use filters. I carry them for every lens diameter I am carrying. Its just what has to be done. And in this bright place and at this altitude, I get as low of a transmission of CPL I can get. Never needed an ND filter for normal exposures. Longer exposures, sure. But a good, dark CPL will do wonders.Where is this conversation going? Must everyone fall in line and use a camera with 1/32000 second. The horse was beat to death, buried and reincarnated already.
Jul 15, 2026 at 07:44 AM
p.5 #14A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
bwcolor wrote:
Again, with stacked sensors, it isn't what has to be done. 1/32,000 since the A9.
Where is this conversation going? Must everyone fall in line and use a camera with 1/32000 second. The horse was beat to death, buried and reincarnated already.
Useful outcomes of this discussion could include:
- Knowing the top shutter speeds of several cameras.
- Knowing that different situations and types of photography affect whether or not 1/8000 second is fast enough or if one needs to get a more expensive camera with two additional “stops” of shutter speed.
- Understanding circumstances in which greater speed may be needed, and understanding alternative options such as ND filters.
- Recognizing that wihile a few may need to shoot f/1.2 lenses in super bright conditions (and therefore need the faster shutter speeds and/or ND filters) most photographers whose needs align with this camera probably don’t.
- - -
gdanmitchell wrote:
Is anyone else as tired of the continuous insult-slinging by a subset of posters around here? Is it not possible to discuss an issue rationally around here any more?
Jack Flesher replied:
Dan, while I agree with your main points, I think discussion about the reasons why some folks want or even feel the need for more than 1/8000th is definitely worthwhile -- even though it may be a bit more spirited than it needs to be
I have no issues at all with discussingthings like this — it is obviously something that matters to some photographers and something that is worth knowing about.
But”discussing” isn’t the issue.
It is the unnecessary and counterproductive need that some have to engage in personal insults against those whose opinion or perspective might be different from their own. If anything, that harms the discussion that we both think is useful.
(I’ve had personal discussions with FM members, some of whom are quite respected in the community, in which they tell me that they are hesitant to join in these discussions because of these attacks. Their absence from these discussions is one of the prices we all pay for tolerating the nastiness.)
Take care,
Dan
Edited on Jul 15, 2026 at 02:03 PM · View previous versions
Again, with stacked sensors, it isn't what has to be done. 1/32,000 since the A9.
Where is this conversation going? Must everyone fall in line and use a camera with 1/32000 second. The horse was beat to death, buried and reincarnated already.
Useful outcomes of this discussion could include:
- Knowing the top shutter speeds of several cameras.
- Knowing that different situations and types of photography affect whether or not 1/8000 second is fast enough or if one needs to get a more expensive camera with two additional “stops” of shutter speed.
- Understanding circumstances in which greater speed may be needed, and understanding alternative options such as ND filters.
- Recognizing that wihile a few may need to shoot f/1.2 lenses in super bright conditions (and therefore need the faster shutter speeds and/or ND filters) most photographers whose needs align with this camera probably don’t.
- - -
gdanmitchell wrote:
Is anyone else as tired of the continuous insult-slinging by a subset of posters around here? Is it not possible to discuss an issue rationally around here any more?
Jack Flesher replied:
Dan, while I agree with your main points, I think discussion about the reasons why some folks want or even feel the need for more than 1/8000th is definitely worthwhile -- even though it may be a bit more spirited than it needs to be
I have no issues at all with discussingthings like this — it is obviously something that matters to some photographers and something that is worth knowing about.
But”discussing” isn’t the issue.
It is the unnecessary and counterproductive need that some have to engage in personal insults against those whose opinion or perspective might be different from their own. If anything, that harms the discussion that we both think is useful.
(I’ve had personal discussions with FM members, some of whom are quite respected in the community, in which they tell me that they are hesitant to join in these discussions because of these attacks. Their absence from these discussions is one of the prices we all pay for tolerating the nastiness.)
Take care,
Dan
Edited on Jul 15, 2026 at 02:03 PM · View previous versions
Jul 15, 2026 at 08:23 AM
p.5 #15A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
gdanmitchell wrote:
Hey, o thingJack, I have no issues at all with discussingthings like this — it is obviously something that matters to some photographers and something that is worth knowing about.
But”discussing” isn’t the issue.
It is the unnecessary and counterproductive need that some have to engage in personal insults against those whose opinion or perspective might be different from their own. If anything, that harms the discussion that we both think is useful.
(I’ve had personal discussions with FM members, some of whom are quite respected in the community, in which they tell me that they are hesitant to join in...Show more →
I hear you. But I also have a different perspective. Proper use of syntax is not overly common in any social media platform, especially forum formats like this one. Multiple reasons probably; folks in a hurry, folks thinking their shorthand is understood, folks thinking sarcasm comes through in said shorthand when it rarely does.
I think this leads to too many users taking too many comments too personally too often…
Thick skin is a benefit, the ability to ignore chaff is another, and the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff makes most of this more generally beneficial and enjoyable. My advice is avoid engaging in any banter and avoid trying to change those who regularly do — it’s long been proven a no-win battle. Stay 😎
Earlier quote
Jack Flesher replied: Dan, while I agree with your main points, I think discussion about the reasons why some folks want or even feel the need for more than 1/8000th is definitely worthwhile -- even though it may be a bit more spirited than it needs to beBut”discussing” isn’t the issue.
It is the unnecessary and counterproductive need that some have to engage in personal insults against those whose opinion or perspective might be different from their own. If anything, that harms the discussion that we both think is useful.
(I’ve had personal discussions with FM members, some of whom are quite respected in the community, in which they tell me that they are hesitant to join in...Show more →
I hear you. But I also have a different perspective. Proper use of syntax is not overly common in any social media platform, especially forum formats like this one. Multiple reasons probably; folks in a hurry, folks thinking their shorthand is understood, folks thinking sarcasm comes through in said shorthand when it rarely does.
I think this leads to too many users taking too many comments too personally too often…
Thick skin is a benefit, the ability to ignore chaff is another, and the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff makes most of this more generally beneficial and enjoyable. My advice is avoid engaging in any banter and avoid trying to change those who regularly do — it’s long been proven a no-win battle. Stay 😎
Jul 15, 2026 at 08:57 AM
p.5 #16A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
Does anyone here remember those things called DSLRs? They were used to take images in ancient times. Many amazing images. Does anyone remember what their max SS was? I’ll give you a hint…it is in the title of this thread.
Jul 16, 2026 at 06:32 AM
p.5 #17A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
arbitrage wrote:
Does anyone here remember those things called DSLRs? They were used to take images in ancient times. Many amazing images. Does anyone remember what their max SS was? I’ll give you a hint…it is in the title of this thread.
And then there were film cameras like the Minolta 9, which had a top shutter speed of 1/12,000.
Does anyone here remember those things called DSLRs? They were used to take images in ancient times. Many amazing images. Does anyone remember what their max SS was? I’ll give you a hint…it is in the title of this thread.
And then there were film cameras like the Minolta 9, which had a top shutter speed of 1/12,000.
Jul 16, 2026 at 07:27 AM
p.5 #18A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
arbitrage wrote:
Does anyone here remember those things called DSLRs? They were used to take images in ancient times. Many amazing images. Does anyone remember what their max SS was? I’ll give you a hint…it is in the title of this thread.
My OG 1D has 1/16,000s shutter speed.
Flash sync is 1/500s
Other than the A9iii, not many other cameras can match both 1/16000 shutter and 1/500s flash sync.
Does anyone here remember those things called DSLRs? They were used to take images in ancient times. Many amazing images. Does anyone remember what their max SS was? I’ll give you a hint…it is in the title of this thread.
My OG 1D has 1/16,000s shutter speed.
Flash sync is 1/500s
Other than the A9iii, not many other cameras can match both 1/16000 shutter and 1/500s flash sync.
Jul 17, 2026 at 02:57 AM
p.5 #19A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
aCuria wrote:
My OG 1D has 1/16,000s shutter speed.
Flash sync is 1/500s
Other than the A9iii, not many other cameras can match both 1/16000 shutter and 1/500s flash sync.
But then later models like the 1d2, 1d4 and 1dx all had max shutter of 1/8000. Seems I never heard anyone complain back then about this limitation.
arbitrage wrote
Does anyone here remember those things called DSLRs? They were used to take images in ancient times. Many amazing images. Does anyone remember what their max SS was? I’ll give you a hint…it is in the title of this thread.Flash sync is 1/500s
Other than the A9iii, not many other cameras can match both 1/16000 shutter and 1/500s flash sync.
But then later models like the 1d2, 1d4 and 1dx all had max shutter of 1/8000. Seems I never heard anyone complain back then about this limitation.
Jul 17, 2026 at 06:30 AM
p.5 #20A7RVI MAX SHUTTER SPEED 1/8000
The Canon 1D was introduced in 2001 with a list price of $6500. In inflation adjusted dollars that would be over $12,000 today.
A 4.1MP 1.3x cropped sensor. 8 fps with up to… 2 second bursts.
;-)
Edited on Jul 17, 2026 at 08:33 AM · View previous versions
A 4.1MP 1.3x cropped sensor. 8 fps with up to… 2 second bursts.
;-)
Edited on Jul 17, 2026 at 08:33 AM · View previous versions
Jul 17, 2026 at 08:29 AM