Since the 1Ds fits 11.4 million pixels in a 35.8 x 23.8 mm imager and the 14n will fit 13.89 in the same area, that suggests the 14n's pixel pitch will be 7.2 microns. Working backward (and presuming my math is correct), 16.72 million pixels, each at 6 microns, would meet the ceiling imposed by lens resolving power.
This is not to suggest that even a 16.72 megapixel camera would provide the ultimate resolution for 35mm format. I think Foveon has taught us that. I want a full-frame, 17 megapixel X3 dSLR for XMas.
To be more precise about the MP numbers of the Canon and Kodak cameras, the actual effective megapixels are 11.1 and +/- 13.5 respectively, not 11.4 and 14MP. So how many microns they actually are, are still in question. No offense, but these speculated micron numbers are very theoretical.
They may be around 7-8 microns, but micron count doesn't mean nearly as much to me as what I actually see when I'm looking at a 13X19 print and evaluating the image quality. The clarity, sharpness to my eye, not some mathematical equation. That's where it is. How clean or grain free is the image? Does it look like a medium format image?
We can throw around numbers till you know what freezes over, but as the old saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words." What matters are actual photos taken by these cameras. A lens resolution chart is a start, but show me some real world samples like the kind we've looked at from the Canon, Kodak and Sigma/Foveon and then it becomes real world stuff.
I'm looking forward to seeing more samples from Phil, the Imaging resource guy(can't remember his name), Kumio Yamada and others. And seeing some 13X19 prints from the 1Ds on the LLVJ coming out in November. I would actually rather see those prints then hear Michael discuss his impressions about them. If Michael wants to discuss his impressions about the AF and AE ability and various other features(voice recording, durability, etc)then cool. But we already have a good idea of Michael's feelings about the image quality. To me, the proof is in the picture(s).[/font]