Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/12/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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.