[Leica] Re:Digital Module R sensor vs EOS 1D IIS

[bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)]

Here's what it means - plain and simple:

You want a full 35mm size sensor, with which you can use 35mm lenses at
normal focal lengths, you have to go to a Canon EOS1d or EOS1ds. With
the EOS1D and Ds you get known image quality;

If you don't care about full 35 mm sensor size, and are willing to
except a lens multiplication factor, and the fact that at the new focal
length you are getting the perspective of and depth of field of the
original focal length, you may, or may not, ultimately be happy with the
digital R back, should it ever appear. As to image quality, you will
have to deal with the fact that until we have independent reviews of
PRINTS as well as on-screen analysis, you will be talking about the
proverbial pig in a poke.

You can play with these numbers until the digital cows come home, but
only physically seeing - or reading reviews by people who have
physically seen - what those numbers produce will give you an accurate
idea of what the products produce.



-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Christopher Williams
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 10:19 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: [Leica] Re:Digital Module R sensor vs EOS 1D IIS


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.


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information