As an example. This is more of a problem on other sites and on social media than on DPReview (though it’ll occasionally happen here) I’ve noticed a recent trend under many articles about new or upcoming cameras – even budget models – where there will be a few comments that are something along the lines of “No global shutter?” And then other people will chime in agreeing that the camera is DOA without one, and an example of manufacturers cheaping out or being behind the times.

And I just have to say: what are you all talking about?? Do you even know what a global shutter is, or are you just asking for one because you’ve heard it’s cool?

Thankfully, these comments aren’t common here on DPReview, and I know most of you are familiar with the concept of a global shutter. But for those that aren’t: it’s a sensor design that lets you capture and read out every pixel, simultaneously, as opposed to having to read them out line-by-line like you have to on cameras with a rolling shutter. This essentially instantaneous readout is even faster than a traditional focal plane mechanical shutter, and is much faster than standard e-shutter readout modes.

Richard Butler

It is a genuinely useful technology for certain scenarios. It lets you sync with flash at effectively any shutter speed (though it can take some trial and error), and capture even the fastest-moving subjects without any risk of the skewing that can happen with rolling shutter*. It can also reduce the risk of banding when shooting under LED lights or photographing a subject with an electronic display behind them. There is still the risk of catching a display when its dark or refreshing, depending on your exposure duration and how fast the screen is, but it gets rid of any potential mismatches between refresh and shutter rates. Global shutters are luxurious for video, too, as there’s absolutely no Jell-o effect no matter how fast your pan, or if you point your camera out of a moving car or towards an arriving train.

Mitchell Clark

I get that it can kind of feel like camera technology has stagnated in recent years, and that people are hungry for a big leap forwards in performance. But let’s take a step back and look at the reality of the situation for a second.

There has only been one full-frame hybrid mirrorless camera released with a global shutter: the Sony a9 III. It is aimed at professional sports and action shooters, and is priced accordingly, coming in $6800. The tech is a bit more common in the world of cinema cameras, but doesn’t come for cheap there, either.

The a9 III also has a notable drawback: its complex readout circuitry limits how much light it can tolerate, pushing its base ISO up to 250 and limiting the image quality you can get out of it compared to other full-frame cameras. The best image you can take with it will have up to a stop and a third more noise than the best image out of another full-frame camera with a base ISO of 100. Its peak IQ performance is much closer to that of an APS-C camera, though at the same ISO settings it’ll still out-perform a camera with a smaller sensor.

With a sample size of one, it’s hard to say if this is inherent to modern global shutter designs (some older CCD chips also had global shutters), or is simply an aspect of this particular sensor, but it’s certainly worth noting if you’re advocating that basically every new camera should have a global shutter. They are not an unalloyed upgrade in every way. Instead, current global shutter sensors make trade-offs in order to be better for some niche use-cases.

Which is why I really do not understand why people say that they should be in every camera, from the most budget options on up. Putting aside whether that’s even economically realistic, do we really think beginner photographers absolutely need perfectly parallel lines in action shots using e-shutter, and that it’s so important that it’d be worth giving up some image quality for?

I want to make it clear that I’m not advocating for consumers to just take what they’re giving and not ask for more from companies. It’s totally fine to look critically at cameras and say “I think you could do better.” (I mean, that is essentially my job.) But I think that if we’re going to spend energy campaigning for improvements, they should be ones that are actually sensible, and that are good matches for the target market. It’s one thing to recognize that image quality appears to be plateauing, but, to me, it’s hard to say that means every camera should include a more expensive technology that trades some IQ for a behavior that’s only really useful in very specific situations.

*- To be fair: the fastest stacked sensor cameras with rolling shutters, which have readout speeds within the 2-4ms range, have also essentially eliminated that risk.