Hi Henning, > >> > After reading the specs on the 1Ds mk III I didn't think it was > >> > something I would want. The ISO is limited to 3200, which really > >> > hinders visible light photography, and the slower fps would hinder > >> > taking pictures of people running and jumping. > > > >> That's why Canon also makes the 1D Mk III. > > > >The 1D sensors are smaller in physical size. Therefore they have > >smaller photosites, ***than an equivalent megapixel sensor*** for a full > >frame camera. Smaller photosites mean they typically don't have the > >same dynamic range, and therefore image quality, or larger > >photosites. So, I don't think that logic follows. > > > >Regards, > > > >Austin > > > > The 1D sensors are smaller in size, but the photosites are larger.
Not necessarily. It depends on which 1D and 1Ds you compare. > The 1D mkIII has a pitch of 135 photosites/mm, whereas the 1Ds mkIII > has a pitche of 156 photosites/mm. So the 1D has photosites with > about 1/3 more area than the 1Ds photosites. Perhaps you missed that, but I qualified in my comment above by saying "than an equivalent megapixel sensor". Canon doesn't make the two latest released 1D and 1Ds (when ever that may be) have the same pixel count, but you can now compare two that have very close pixel counts, such as the 1D III and the 1Ds. As I mentioned, typically the larger photosites will have lower noise (though there is a 5 year difference between these two cameras), and it would be an interesting comparison. But, you'd need to compare raw images, since the internal processing of the later cameras may be better at noise mitigation. Regards, Austin * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
