Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/12/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I do miss the Zeiss vs. Leica wars. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Dykstra"Subject: [Leica] Digital Module R sensor vs EOS 1D IIS > DMR: 26.4 x 17.6 mm sensor with 9,974,272 effective pixels = 21,466 > pixels per square millimeter. > > EOS 1DIIS: 36 x 24 mm sensor with 16,700,000 effective pixels = > 19,328 pixels per square millimeter. > > But what does this all mean? Given its smaller sensor an image from the > DMR would need to be blown up more to match the size of the EOS image, > by a factor of 1.36. This gives: > > DMR: 21,466 pixels per square millimeter divided by 1.36 = 15,784 > pixels per image area corresponding to 1 square millimeter of the > sensor. > > EOS 1DIIS: No factor applies, so it has 19,328 pixels per image area > corresponding to 1 square millimeter of the sensor. > > Therefore the EOS 1DIIS image is 1.23 times more 'dense' than the DMR > image. Noticeable? Or is my maths just dense? > > Other factors: > Are Leica lenses sufficiently better than Canon L lenses to make up the > difference? > The utility of Canon's image stabilising if relevant to the style of > shooting. > The utility of Canon's autofocus if relevant to the style of shooting. > Availability, reliability, maturity, depreciation, accessories, > ergonomics, workflow integration, cost of body, cost of switching > systems, fear of visit from Leica police, fear of wife ... ;-) > > Ideal solution? Leica/Kodak/Imacon ups the pixels! :-) > > Rick.