I note in the specs that the new 1DsMk2 sensor is listed as a full 24x36mm, whereas the effective area of the original 1Ds sensor is 23.8-35.8mm. If this is not just sloppy specification, it means very slightly greater wide angles are possible. Reminds me of how excited I was when I got my first full frame negative carrier, 25x37 mm, so I could get everything out of the typical 24.1x36.15mm negatives produced by my film cameras. [Film gates varied from camera model to model; most of the better cameras were slightly larger than standard, whereas commercial printers always cropped out quite a bit, using something like a 22.7x34mm area of the neg. I hated that, but then I always did most of my own printing then.]
Pondria wrote:
0.2 mm can be , what, 25 pixels wide with 1DsMKII ? That's a lot of area to ignore !
Yeah, I know people who try to print images about that width!
It is a lot of area, true, given the length of the edges.
Somehow I figured you might be the first one I caught with this topic.
"The EOS-1Ds Mark II’s sensor measures 36 by 24mm"
The original 1Ds brochure states
"...with an imaging area of 24x36mm..."
As the MKII's brochure also refers to effective pixels and total pixels, just like the 1Ds, it looks like the usual result of a smaller effective image. There would be no need to mention effective versus total if the full 36x24 was output. Looks like they just didn't proof very well, as usual.
Hammerli wrote:
The 1Ds-MKII white paper from Canon says
"The EOS-1Ds Mark II’s sensor measures 36 by 24mm"
The original 1Ds brochure states
"...with an imaging area of 24x36mm..."
As the MKII's brochure also refers to effective pixels and total pixels, just like the 1Ds, it looks like the usual result of a smaller effective image. There would be no need to mention effective versus total if the full 36x24 was output. Looks like they just didn't proof very well, as usual.
No surprise! But the same situation applied to the Kodak 14N, and it turned out to actually use 24x36 effective area, so maybe we'll get lucky. Not that it really makes much difference. We could talk about 4 Canon sensor areas instead of 3.
Photon wrote:
We could talk about 4 Canon sensor areas instead of 3.
Right, now they'll have to introduce a whole new line of lenses for the new "fuller frame" sensor. I'm really interested to see if the advancements in the microlenses will affect the peripheral pixels positively.
Hammerli wrote:
Right, now they'll have to introduce a whole new line of lenses for the new "fuller frame" sensor. I'm really interested to see if the advancements in the microlenses will affect the peripheral pixels positively.
I'd meant to comment on that, too. They're touting them for improvements in noise levels and color rendition, but intuitively it seems as if it (wider microlenses) could help also with wide angle lenses or any optical designs that result in a significant "angle of approach" from the rear-most optical surface to the edge of the sensor area. Maybe less color fringing?
[Film gates varied from camera model to model; most of the better cameras were slightly larger than standard, whereas commercial printers always cropped out quite a bit, using something like a 22.7x34mm area of the neg. I hated that, but then I always did most of my own printing then.]
Maybe less color fringing?