Click to view attachment
Gold is Kodak 50MP, blue is Leica, white is 35mm.
Full Version: Leica S2 sensor size
QUOTE (teddillard @ Sep 28 2008, 06:39 PM)
Could you perhaps also include the latest Dalsa (Leaf and Phase) sensors? That would make the picture complete.
QUOTE (EPd @ Sep 29 2008, 03:26 AM)
Could you perhaps also include the latest Dalsa (Leaf and Phase) sensors? That would make the picture complete.
This was posted on LL a while ago if it's any help
QUOTE (EPd @ Sep 28 2008, 01:26 PM)
Could you perhaps also include the latest Dalsa (Leaf and Phase) sensors? That would make the picture complete.
sure thing, the big chips are here:
http://www.teddillard.com/2008/08/big-chips.html
ok, uh, lemmee see.
from the inside out...
white- 35mm
blue- Leica S2
gold- Hassey HD3II50
green- Leaf
purple- Phase
yellow- full 645
Click to view attachment
QUOTE (teddillard @ Sep 28 2008, 02:42 PM)
sure thing, the big chips are here:
http://www.teddillard.com/2008/08/big-chips.html
ok, uh, lemmee see.
from the inside out...
white- 35mm
blue- Leica S2
gold- Hassey HD3II50
green- Leaf
purple- Phase
yellow- full 645
Click to view attachment
http://www.teddillard.com/2008/08/big-chips.html
ok, uh, lemmee see.
from the inside out...
white- 35mm
blue- Leica S2
gold- Hassey HD3II50
green- Leaf
purple- Phase
yellow- full 645
Click to view attachment
This is the physical difference, (not pixel count, just physical size).
Click to view attachment
And it really doesn't tell you much because so much depends on the iso, the available range of lenses and of course costs.
Interesting is how close in physical size the S2 is to the P30+ (or Hasselblad 31), so I guess a lot of that decisiion will come down to price or either the bling of a Leica.
Then again as I was doing this I thought how silly it is, because it tells you nothing of resolving power, or how any of these cameras work at higher to lower isos, color casts, anything for that matter, other than the aspect ratio.
We can all test and compare these things until our belt buckles fall off, but in the end the decision really is made on what and how you shoot.
What i should have done is put a dollar value on each of these image sizes. That would probably open up a lot of eyes.
(BTW: this original shot I used a p21+ which I am positive is more cost effective than any of the backs listed here).
JR
QUOTE (James R Russell @ Sep 28 2008, 02:15 PM)
This is the physical difference, (not pixel count, just physical size).
Click to view attachment
And it really doesn't tell you much because so much depends on the iso, the available range of lenses and of course costs.
Interesting is how close in physical size the S2 is to the P30+ (or Hasselblad 31), so I guess a lot of that decisiion will come down to price or either the bling of a Leica.
Then again as I was doing this I thought how silly it is, because it tells you nothing of resolving power, or how any of these cameras work at higher to lower isos, color casts, anything for that matter, other than the aspect ratio.
We can all test and compare these things until our belt buckles fall off, but in the end the decision really is made on what and how you shoot.
What i should have done is put a dollar value on each of these image sizes. That would probably open up a lot of eyes.
(BTW: this original shot I used a p21+ which I am positive is more cost effective than any of the backs listed here).
JR
Click to view attachment
And it really doesn't tell you much because so much depends on the iso, the available range of lenses and of course costs.
Interesting is how close in physical size the S2 is to the P30+ (or Hasselblad 31), so I guess a lot of that decisiion will come down to price or either the bling of a Leica.
Then again as I was doing this I thought how silly it is, because it tells you nothing of resolving power, or how any of these cameras work at higher to lower isos, color casts, anything for that matter, other than the aspect ratio.
We can all test and compare these things until our belt buckles fall off, but in the end the decision really is made on what and how you shoot.
What i should have done is put a dollar value on each of these image sizes. That would probably open up a lot of eyes.
(BTW: this original shot I used a p21+ which I am positive is more cost effective than any of the backs listed here).
JR
all very true... I was actually just interested in the coverage, to get an idea of the wide-angle implications.
my motto: show me the file!
QUOTE (James R Russell @ Sep 28 2008, 09:15 PM)
This is the physical difference, (not pixel count, just physical size).
What i should have done is put a dollar value on each of these image sizes. That would probably open up a lot of eyes.
JR
What i should have done is put a dollar value on each of these image sizes. That would probably open up a lot of eyes.
JR
A dollar per pixel price would be an eye-opener
QUOTE (Dustbak @ Sep 29 2008, 07:44 AM)
A dollar per pixel price would be an eye-opener
Not terribly relevant though?
At the top end chip size is everything. Thats why I'd prefer that P65+ chip over the Leaf chip even if the Leaf had 10Mpx more than the P65+
Very approximately as I'm heavily ballparking the prices of these in a major way.
A 5DII approx 9000 pixels per dollar
Aptus 75 1175 pixels per dollar (based roughly on RRP when I published)
P65+ 1500 pixels per dollar
But that doesn't make using a 24 TS-E lens on a 5DII approach the quality of a Schneider 35XL lens on the Aptus, adding 10 more megapixels to the Canon would not help.
QUOTE (free1000 @ Sep 29 2008, 12:13 PM)
Not terribly relevant though?
At the top end chip size is everything. Thats why I'd prefer that P65+ chip over the Leaf chip even if the Leaf had 10Mpx more than the P65+
Very approximately as I'm heavily ballparking the prices of these in a major way.
A 5DII approx 9000 pixels per dollar
Aptus 75 1175 pixels per dollar (based roughly on RRP when I published)
P65+ 1500 pixels per dollar
But that doesn't make using a 24 TS-E lens on a 5DII approach the quality of a Schneider 35XL lens on the Aptus, adding 10 more megapixels to the Canon would not help.
At the top end chip size is everything. Thats why I'd prefer that P65+ chip over the Leaf chip even if the Leaf had 10Mpx more than the P65+
Very approximately as I'm heavily ballparking the prices of these in a major way.
A 5DII approx 9000 pixels per dollar
Aptus 75 1175 pixels per dollar (based roughly on RRP when I published)
P65+ 1500 pixels per dollar
But that doesn't make using a 24 TS-E lens on a 5DII approach the quality of a Schneider 35XL lens on the Aptus, adding 10 more megapixels to the Canon would not help.
Off course not
I didn't take James remark seriously (at least not that part), so don't take mine too serious. I find too many people are simply and only looking at pixels and not taking into consideration there are other factors as well why someone chooses to use certain systems. If it would have been so simple as to just compare pixel/dollar.... (for some this appears to be the case)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.