Wait for MK IIII for 25 meg pixels.
Paul Moortgat
On 28 Aug 2007, at 01:40, Austin Franklin wrote:
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
***********************************************************
