Steve Spencer wrote: tctmp wrote: Steve Spencer wrote:
Well what matters is the sensor scan speed not whether they call it fully stacked or partially stacked.
Well you always find ways to wiggle out and divert.
Huh? Why the personal attack? No place for that. What matters is the sensor scan speed not your personal attacks. If the sensor scan speed is 16ms that is nothing like the 4ms from the A1 II. Some people will find the 16ms useful for many things but for fast action like often happens with wildlife and sports the electronic shutter at 16ms will lead to motion distortion. You will still need to switch to the mechanical shutter and 10 fps when you shoot faster action. That won't be the end of the world but it won't compete with the A1 II for that type of shooting either.
Oh and it won't be competting with the 3ms sensor scan speed of the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or even the 6ms sensor scan speed of the Canon R5 II. It is still a pipe dream to expect the camera to deliver the highest resolution of a FF camera, great DR, and compete with those cameras for fast action shooting in electronic shutter mode and deliver all that at a much lower price than the A1 II or even the A1 original that is still on sale at a higher price than what this camera will be.
Sorry I'm just pointing out the facts, as I see it in multiple threads. . Go back and read at how many posts you wrote in this thread to argue why it can't be fully stacked sensor, and why it must be partially stacked, and why others are wrong and ahead of themselves. Now you realizing that the rumor is trending to show you could be wrong, you are moving the goalposts to say it's just a subjective naming?
And I never said it would compete with A1 sensors. That's in fact my point that fully stacked sensors can be used for less spec-ed cameras as in my turbo engine example. But you somehow can't comprehend that, or rather don't want to comprehend that because it's counter to your position of it's partially stacked sensor. So you chose to argue the opposite that less spec-ed cameras will not use fully stacked sensors because it's too expensive. I just didn't bother to argue with you afterwards since I know you will move your positions while pretending you didn't, as you just did again here.
That's all I'm pointing out with the term "wiggle out". If you have a different phrase to use to mean the same behavior, you can suggest.
Edit: To not make another post, I will conclude with the following. You are always the one (not me) to initiate response to my posts and make opposing arguments, and you keep on wiggling your positions. You can play the political game and play the victim and divert all you want, but what you wrote don't lie. It has gone from "it has to be partially stacked because fully stacked is too expensive" to "it's just a name they can call either way" to something else now.
So my assessment is fair and honest. On the other hand, repeatedly characterizing an act of calling out people "wiggling out in debates" as personal attacks is way more dishonest.
May 05, 2026 at 12:04 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Steve Spencer wrote: tctmp wrote: Steve Spencer wrote:
Well what matters is the sensor scan speed not whether they call it fully stacked or partially stacked.
Well you always find ways to wiggle out and divert.
Huh? Why the personal attack? No place for that. What matters is the sensor scan speed not your personal attacks. If the sensor scan speed is 16ms that is nothing like the 4ms from the A1 II. Some people will find the 16ms useful for many things but for fast action like often happens with wildlife and sports the electronic shutter at 16ms will lead to motion distortion. You will still need to switch to the mechanical shutter and 10 fps when you shoot faster action. That won't be the end of the world but it won't compete with the A1 II for that type of shooting either.
Oh and it won't be competting with the 3ms sensor scan speed of the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or even the 6ms sensor scan speed of the Canon R5 II. It is still a pipe dream to expect the camera to deliver the highest resolution of a FF camera, great DR, and compete with those cameras for fast action shooting in electronic shutter mode and deliver all that at a much lower price than the A1 II or even the A1 original that is still on sale at a higher price than what this camera will be.
Sorry I'm just pointing out the facts, as I see it in multiple threads. . Go back and read at how many posts you wrote in this thread to argue why it can't be fully stacked sensor, and why it must be partially stacked, and why others are wrong and ahead of themselves. Now you realizing that the rumor is trending to show you could be wrong, you are moving the goalposts to say it's just a subjective naming?
And I never said it would compete with A1 sensors. That's in fact my point that fully stacked sensors can be used for less spec-ed cameras as in my turbo engine example. But you somehow can't comprehend that, or rather don't want to comprehend that because it's counter to your position of it's partially stacked sensor. So you chose to argue the opposite that less spec-ed cameras will not use fully stacked sensors because it's too expensive. I just didn't bother to argue with you afterwards since I know you will move your positions while pretending you didn't, as you just did again here.
That's all I'm pointing out with the term "wiggle out". If you have a different phrase to use to mean the same behavior, you can suggest.
Edit: To not make another post, I will conclude with the following. You are always the one (not me) to initiate response to my posts and make opposing arguments, and you keep on wiggling your positions. You can play the political game and play the victim and divert all you want, but what you wrote don't lie. It has gone from "it has to be partially stacked because fully stacked is too expensive" to "it's just a name they can call either way" to something else now.
So my assessment is fair and honest. On the other hand, repeatedly characterizing an act of calling out people "wiggling out in debates" as personal attacks is dishonest.
May 05, 2026 at 12:02 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Steve Spencer wrote: tctmp wrote: Steve Spencer wrote:
Well what matters is the sensor scan speed not whether they call it fully stacked or partially stacked.
Well you always find ways to wiggle out and divert.
Huh? Why the personal attack? No place for that. What matters is the sensor scan speed not your personal attacks. If the sensor scan speed is 16ms that is nothing like the 4ms from the A1 II. Some people will find the 16ms useful for many things but for fast action like often happens with wildlife and sports the electronic shutter at 16ms will lead to motion distortion. You will still need to switch to the mechanical shutter and 10 fps when you shoot faster action. That won't be the end of the world but it won't compete with the A1 II for that type of shooting either.
Oh and it won't be competting with the 3ms sensor scan speed of the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or even the 6ms sensor scan speed of the Canon R5 II. It is still a pipe dream to expect the camera to deliver the highest resolution of a FF camera, great DR, and compete with those cameras for fast action shooting in electronic shutter mode and deliver all that at a much lower price than the A1 II or even the A1 original that is still on sale at a higher price than what this camera will be.
Sorry I'm just pointing out the facts, as I see it in multiple threads. . Go back and read at how many posts you wrote in this thread to argue why it can't be fully stacked sensor, and why it must be partially stacked, and why others are wrong and ahead of themselves. Now you realizing that the rumor is trending to show you could be wrong, you are moving the goalposts to say it's just a subjective naming?
And I never said it would compete with A1 sensors. That's in fact my point that fully stacked sensors can be used for less spec-ed cameras as in my turbo engine example. But you somehow can't comprehend that, or rather don't want to comprehend that because it's counter to your position of it's partially stacked sensor. So you chose to argue the opposite that less spec-ed cameras will not use fully stacked sensors because it's too expensive. I just didn't bother to argue with you afterwards since I know you will move your positions while pretending you didn't, as you just did again here.
That's all I'm pointing out with the term "wiggle out". If you have a different phrase to use to mean the same behavior, you can suggest.
Edit: To not make another post, I will conclude with the following. You are always the one (not me) to initiate response to my posts and make opposing arguments, and you keep on wiggling your positions. You can play the political game and play the victim and divert all you want, but what you wrote don't lie. It has gone from "it has to be partially stacked because fully stacked is too expensive" to "it's just a name they can call either way" to something else now.
So my assessment is fair and honest. On the other hand, repeatedly characterizing an act of calling out people "wiggling out in debates" as personal attacks is way more dishonest.
May 05, 2026 at 12:01 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Steve Spencer wrote: tctmp wrote: Steve Spencer wrote:
Well what matters is the sensor scan speed not whether they call it fully stacked or partially stacked.
Well you always find ways to wiggle out and divert.
Huh? Why the personal attack? No place for that. What matters is the sensor scan speed not your personal attacks. If the sensor scan speed is 16ms that is nothing like the 4ms from the A1 II. Some people will find the 16ms useful for many things but for fast action like often happens with wildlife and sports the electronic shutter at 16ms will lead to motion distortion. You will still need to switch to the mechanical shutter and 10 fps when you shoot faster action. That won't be the end of the world but it won't compete with the A1 II for that type of shooting either.
Oh and it won't be competting with the 3ms sensor scan speed of the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or even the 6ms sensor scan speed of the Canon R5 II. It is still a pipe dream to expect the camera to deliver the highest resolution of a FF camera, great DR, and compete with those cameras for fast action shooting in electronic shutter mode and deliver all that at a much lower price than the A1 II or even the A1 original that is still on sale at a higher price than what this camera will be.
Sorry I'm just pointing out the facts, as I see it in multiple threads. . Go back and read at how many posts you wrote in this thread to argue why it can't be fully stacked sensor, and why it must be partially stacked, and why others are wrong and ahead of themselves. Now you realizing that the rumor is trending to show you could be wrong, you are moving the goalposts to say it's just a subjective naming?
And I never said it would compete with A1 sensors. That's in fact my point that fully stacked sensors can be used for less spec-ed cameras as in my turbo engine example. But you somehow can't comprehend that, or rather don't want to comprehend that because it's counter to your position of it's partially stacked sensor. So you chose to argue the opposite that less spec-ed cameras will not use fully stacked sensors because it's too expensive. I just didn't bother to argue with you afterwards since I know you will move your positions while pretending you didn't, as you just did again here.
That's all I'm pointing out with the term "wiggle out". If you have a different phrase to use to mean the same behavior, you can suggest.
Edit: To not make another post, I will conclude with the following. You are always the one (not me) to initiate response to my posts and make opposing arguments, and you keep on wiggling your positions. You can play the political game and play the victim and divert all you want, but what you wrote don't lie. It has gone from "it has to be partially stacked because fully stacked is too expensive" to "it's just a name they can call either way" to something else now. My assessment is fair and honest.
May 05, 2026 at 11:42 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Steve Spencer wrote: tctmp wrote: Steve Spencer wrote:
Well what matters is the sensor scan speed not whether they call it fully stacked or partially stacked.
Well you always find ways to wiggle out and divert.
Huh? Why the personal attack? No place for that. What matters is the sensor scan speed not your personal attacks. If the sensor scan speed is 16ms that is nothing like the 4ms from the A1 II. Some people will find the 16ms useful for many things but for fast action like often happens with wildlife and sports the electronic shutter at 16ms will lead to motion distortion. You will still need to switch to the mechanical shutter and 10 fps when you shoot faster action. That won't be the end of the world but it won't compete with the A1 II for that type of shooting either.
Oh and it won't be competting with the 3ms sensor scan speed of the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or even the 6ms sensor scan speed of the Canon R5 II. It is still a pipe dream to expect the camera to deliver the highest resolution of a FF camera, great DR, and compete with those cameras for fast action shooting in electronic shutter mode and deliver all that at a much lower price than the A1 II or even the A1 original that is still on sale at a higher price than what this camera will be.
Sorry I'm just pointing out the facts, as I see it in multiple threads. . Go back and read at how many posts you wrote in this thread to argue why it can't be fully stacked sensor, and why it must be partially stacked, and why others are wrong and ahead of themselves. Now you realizing that the rumor is trending to show you could be wrong, you are moving the goalposts to say it's just a subjective naming?
And I never said it would compete with A1 sensors. That's in fact my point that fully stacked sensors can be used for less spec-ed cameras as in my turbo engine example. But you somehow can't comprehend that, or rather don't want to comprehend that because it's counter to your position of it's partially stacked sensor. So you chose to argue the opposite that less spec-ed cameras will not use fully stacked sensors because it's too expensive. I just didn't bother to argue with you afterwards since I know you will move your positions while pretending you didn't, as you just did again here.
That's all I'm pointing out with the term "wiggle out". If you have a different phrase to use to mean the same behavior, you can suggest.
Edit: To not make another post, I will conclude with the following. You are always the one (not me) to initiate response to my posts and make opposing arguments, and you keep on wiggling your positions. You can play the victim and divert all you want, but what you wrote don't lie. It has gone from "it has to be partially stacked because fully stacked is too expensive" to "it's just a name they can call either way" to something else now. My assessment is fair and honest.
May 05, 2026 at 11:37 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Steve Spencer wrote: tctmp wrote: Steve Spencer wrote:
Well what matters is the sensor scan speed not whether they call it fully stacked or partially stacked.
Well you always find ways to wiggle out and divert.
Huh? Why the personal attack? No place for that. What matters is the sensor scan speed not your personal attacks. If the sensor scan speed is 16ms that is nothing like the 4ms from the A1 II. Some people will find the 16ms useful for many things but for fast action like often happens with wildlife and sports the electronic shutter at 16ms will lead to motion distortion. You will still need to switch to the mechanical shutter and 10 fps when you shoot faster action. That won't be the end of the world but it won't compete with the A1 II for that type of shooting either.
Oh and it won't be competting with the 3ms sensor scan speed of the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or even the 6ms sensor scan speed of the Canon R5 II. It is still a pipe dream to expect the camera to deliver the highest resolution of a FF camera, great DR, and compete with those cameras for fast action shooting in electronic shutter mode and deliver all that at a much lower price than the A1 II or even the A1 original that is still on sale at a higher price than what this camera will be.
Sorry I'm just pointing out the facts, as I see it in multiple threads. . Go back and read at how many posts you wrote in this thread to argue why it can't be fully stacked sensor, and why it must be partially stacked, and why others are wrong and ahead of themselves. Now you realizing that the rumor is trending to show you could be wrong, you are moving the goalposts to say it's just a subjective naming?
And I never said it would compete with A1 sensors. That's in fact my point that fully stacked sensors can be used for less spec-ed cameras as in my turbo engine example. But you somehow can't comprehend that, or rather don't want to comprehend that because it's counter to your position of it's partially stacked sensor. So you chose to argue the opposite that less spec-ed cameras will not use fully stacked sensors because it's too expensive. I just didn't bother to argue with you afterwards since I know you will move your positions while pretending you didn't, as you just did again here.
That's all I'm pointing out with the term "wiggle out". If you have a different phrase to use to mean the same behavior, you can suggest.
Edit: To not make another post, I will conclude with the following. You are always the first one to initiate response to my posts and make opposing arguments, and you keep on wiggling your positions. You can play the victim and divert all you want, but what you wrote don't lie. It has gone from "it has to be partially stacked because fully stacked is too expensive" to "it's just a name they can call either way" to something else now. My assessment is fair and honest.
May 05, 2026 at 11:36 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Steve Spencer wrote: tctmp wrote: Steve Spencer wrote:
Well what matters is the sensor scan speed not whether they call it fully stacked or partially stacked.
Well you always find ways to wiggle out and divert.
Huh? Why the personal attack? No place for that. What matters is the sensor scan speed not your personal attacks. If the sensor scan speed is 16ms that is nothing like the 4ms from the A1 II. Some people will find the 16ms useful for many things but for fast action like often happens with wildlife and sports the electronic shutter at 16ms will lead to motion distortion. You will still need to switch to the mechanical shutter and 10 fps when you shoot faster action. That won't be the end of the world but it won't compete with the A1 II for that type of shooting either.
Oh and it won't be competting with the 3ms sensor scan speed of the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or even the 6ms sensor scan speed of the Canon R5 II. It is still a pipe dream to expect the camera to deliver the highest resolution of a FF camera, great DR, and compete with those cameras for fast action shooting in electronic shutter mode and deliver all that at a much lower price than the A1 II or even the A1 original that is still on sale at a higher price than what this camera will be.
Sorry I'm just pointing out the facts, as I see it in multiple threads. . Go back and read at how many posts you wrote in this thread to argue why it can't be fully stacked sensor, and why it must be partially stacked, and why others are wrong and ahead of themselves. Now you realizing that the rumor is trending to show you could be wrong, you are moving the goalposts to say it's just a subjective naming?
And I never said it would compete with A1 sensors. That's in fact my point that fully stacked sensors can be used for less spec-ed cameras as in my turbo engine example. But you somehow can't comprehend that, or rather don't want to comprehend that because it's counter to your position of it's partially stacked sensor. So you chose to argue the opposite that less spec-ed cameras will not use fully stacked sensors because it's too expensive. I just didn't bother to argue with you afterwards since I know you will move your positions while pretending you didn't, as you just did again here.
That's all I'm pointing out with the term "wiggle out". If you have a different phrase to use to mean the same behavior, you can suggest.
Edit: To not make another post, I will conclude with the following. You are always the first one to initiate response to my posts and make opposing arguments, and you keep on wiggling your positions. You can play the victim and divert all you want, but what you wrote don't lie. It has gone from "it has to be partially stacked because fully stacked is too expensive" to "it's just a name they call" to something else now. My assessment is fair and honest.
May 05, 2026 at 11:29 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Steve Spencer wrote: tctmp wrote: Steve Spencer wrote:
Well what matters is the sensor scan speed not whether they call it fully stacked or partially stacked.
Well you always find ways to wiggle out and divert.
Huh? Why the personal attack? No place for that. What matters is the sensor scan speed not your personal attacks. If the sensor scan speed is 16ms that is nothing like the 4ms from the A1 II. Some people will find the 16ms useful for many things but for fast action like often happens with wildlife and sports the electronic shutter at 16ms will lead to motion distortion. You will still need to switch to the mechanical shutter and 10 fps when you shoot faster action. That won't be the end of the world but it won't compete with the A1 II for that type of shooting either.
Oh and it won't be competting with the 3ms sensor scan speed of the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or even the 6ms sensor scan speed of the Canon R5 II. It is still a pipe dream to expect the camera to deliver the highest resolution of a FF camera, great DR, and compete with those cameras for fast action shooting in electronic shutter mode and deliver all that at a much lower price than the A1 II or even the A1 original that is still on sale at a higher price than what this camera will be.
Sorry I'm just pointing out the facts, as I see it in multiple threads. . Go back and read at how many posts you wrote in this thread to argue why it can't be fully stacked sensor, and why it must be partially stacked, and why others are wrong and ahead of themselves. Now you realizing that the rumor is trending to show you could be wrong, you are moving the goalposts to say it's just a subjective naming?
And I never said it would compete with A1 sensors. That's in fact my point that fully stacked sensors can be used for less spec-ed cameras as in my turbo engine example. But you somehow can't comprehend that, or rather don't want to comprehend that because it's counter to your position of it's partially stacked sensor. So you chose to argue the opposite that less spec-ed cameras will not use fully stacked sensors because it's too expensive. I just didn't bother to argue with you afterwards since I know you will move your positions while pretending you didn't, as you just did again here.
That's all I'm pointing out with the term "wiggle out". If you have a different phrase to use to mean the same behavior, you can suggest.
Edit: To not make another post, I will conclude with the following. You are always the first one to initiate response to my posts and make opposing arguments, and you keep on wiggling your positions. You can play the victim and divert all you want, but what you wrote don't lie. My assessment is fair and honest.
May 05, 2026 at 11:23 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Steve Spencer wrote: tctmp wrote: Steve Spencer wrote:
Well what matters is the sensor scan speed not whether they call it fully stacked or partially stacked.
Well you always find ways to wiggle out and divert.
Huh? Why the personal attack? No place for that. What matters is the sensor scan speed not your personal attacks. If the sensor scan speed is 16ms that is nothing like the 4ms from the A1 II. Some people will find the 16ms useful for many things but for fast action like often happens with wildlife and sports the electronic shutter at 16ms will lead to motion distortion. You will still need to switch to the mechanical shutter and 10 fps when you shoot faster action. That won't be the end of the world but it won't compete with the A1 II for that type of shooting either.
Oh and it won't be competting with the 3ms sensor scan speed of the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or even the 6ms sensor scan speed of the Canon R5 II. It is still a pipe dream to expect the camera to deliver the highest resolution of a FF camera, great DR, and compete with those cameras for fast action shooting in electronic shutter mode and deliver all that at a much lower price than the A1 II or even the A1 original that is still on sale at a higher price than what this camera will be.
Sorry I'm just pointing out the facts, as I see it in multiple threads. . Go back and read at how many posts you wrote in this thread to argue why it can't be fully stacked sensor, and why it must be partially stacked, and why others are wrong and ahead of themselves. Now you realizing that the rumor is trending to show you could be wrong, you are moving the goalposts to say it's just a subjective naming?
And I never said it would compete with A1 sensors. That's in fact my point that fully stacked sensors can be used for less spec-ed cameras as in my turbo engine example. But you somehow can't comprehend that, or rather don't want to comprehend that because it's counter to your position of it's partially stacked sensor. So you chose to argue the opposite that less spec-ed cameras will not use fully stacked sensors because it's too expensive. I just didn't bother to argue with you afterwards since I know you will move your positions while pretending you didn't, as you just did again here.
That's all I'm pointing out with the term "wiggle out". If you have a different phrase to use to mean the same behavior, you can suggest.
Edit: To not make another post, I will conclude with the following. You are always the first one to initiate response to my posts and make opposing arguments, and when your points were shown to be wrong, you keep on wiggle your positions. You can play the victim and divert all you want, but what you wrote don't lie. My assessment is fair and honest.
May 05, 2026 at 11:20 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Steve Spencer wrote: tctmp wrote: Steve Spencer wrote:
Well what matters is the sensor scan speed not whether they call it fully stacked or partially stacked.
Well you always find ways to wiggle out and divert.
Huh? Why the personal attack? No place for that. What matters is the sensor scan speed not your personal attacks. If the sensor scan speed is 16ms that is nothing like the 4ms from the A1 II. Some people will find the 16ms useful for many things but for fast action like often happens with wildlife and sports the electronic shutter at 16ms will lead to motion distortion. You will still need to switch to the mechanical shutter and 10 fps when you shoot faster action. That won't be the end of the world but it won't compete with the A1 II for that type of shooting either.
Oh and it won't be competting with the 3ms sensor scan speed of the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or even the 6ms sensor scan speed of the Canon R5 II. It is still a pipe dream to expect the camera to deliver the highest resolution of a FF camera, great DR, and compete with those cameras for fast action shooting in electronic shutter mode and deliver all that at a much lower price than the A1 II or even the A1 original that is still on sale at a higher price than what this camera will be.
Sorry I'm just pointing out the facts, as I see it in multiple threads. . Go back and read at how many posts you wrote in this thread to argue why it can't be fully stacked sensor, and why it must be partially stacked, and why others are wrong and ahead of themselves. Now you realizing that the rumor is trending to show you could be wrong, you are moving the goalposts to say it's just a subjective naming?
And I never said it would compete with A1 sensors. That's in fact my point that fully stacked sensors can be used for less spec-ed cameras as in my turbo engine example. But you somehow can't comprehend that, or rather don't want to comprehend that because it's counter to your position of it's partially stacked sensor. So you chose to argue the opposite that less spec-ed cameras will not use fully stacked sensors because it's too expensive. I just didn't bother to argue with you afterwards since I know you will move your positions while pretending you didn't, as you just did again here.
That's all I'm pointing out with the term "wiggle out". If you have a different phrase to use to mean the same behavior, you can suggest.
Edit: To not make another post, I will conclude with the following. You are always the first one to respond to my posts and make opposing arguments, and when your points were shown to be wrong, you keep on your positions. You can play the victim and divert all you want, but what you wrote don't lie. My assessment is fair and honest.
May 05, 2026 at 11:19 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Steve Spencer wrote: tctmp wrote: Steve Spencer wrote:
Well what matters is the sensor scan speed not whether they call it fully stacked or partially stacked.
Well you always find ways to wiggle out and divert.
Huh? Why the personal attack? No place for that. What matters is the sensor scan speed not your personal attacks. If the sensor scan speed is 16ms that is nothing like the 4ms from the A1 II. Some people will find the 16ms useful for many things but for fast action like often happens with wildlife and sports the electronic shutter at 16ms will lead to motion distortion. You will still need to switch to the mechanical shutter and 10 fps when you shoot faster action. That won't be the end of the world but it won't compete with the A1 II for that type of shooting either.
Oh and it won't be competting with the 3ms sensor scan speed of the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or even the 6ms sensor scan speed of the Canon R5 II. It is still a pipe dream to expect the camera to deliver the highest resolution of a FF camera, great DR, and compete with those cameras for fast action shooting in electronic shutter mode and deliver all that at a much lower price than the A1 II or even the A1 original that is still on sale at a higher price than what this camera will be.
Sorry I'm just pointing out the facts, as I see it in multiple threads. . Go back and read at how many posts you wrote in this thread to argue why it can't be fully stacked sensor, and why it must be partially stacked, and why others are wrong and ahead of themselves. Now you realizing that the rumor is trending to show you could be wrong, you are moving the goalposts to say it's just a subjective naming?
And I never said it would compete with A1 sensors. That's in fact my point that fully stacked sensors can be used for less spec-ed cameras as in my turbo engine example. But you somehow can't comprehend that, or rather don't want to comprehend that because it's counter to your position of it's partially stacked sensor. So you chose to argue the opposite that less spec-ed cameras will not use fully stacked sensors because it's too expensive. I just didn't bother to argue with you afterwards since I know you will move your positions while pretending you didn't, as you just did again here.
That's all I'm pointing out with the term "wiggle out". If you have a different phrase to use to mean the same behavior, you can suggest.
May 05, 2026 at 09:59 AM
Previous versions of tctmp's message #17032519 « Sony A7RVI »
