39 Megapixel Camera: Is It Worth Is?

[DAC1138 0]

https://www.engadget.com/

Can anyone explain to me what this would be used for? I work with a lot of professional photographers who only use a 10 megapixel Canon Digital SLR camera. 10 Megapixels is fine. 10 MP can do a lot. Now what on Earth would people do with a 39 megapixel camera? I can see if it shot video as well at the 39 megapixel resolution, but it can't even do that. If it did shoot video I would imagine it would be a cheaper competitor to the Red camera. Can anyone enlighten me on this new piece of cra....um, technology?

[Jeigh1405241495 0]

I assume there are pretty understandable uses for it... I mean... I don't have a clue in heck what they would be. but people need insanely detailed images of things, I'm sure, and this would be useful in that context :| haha I don't know, wait until they hit the market and see if any news articles disucss it maybe...

[toby 0]

Probably amateur areial shots?

[demolaynyc 0]

Hmm.... I don't see how the details on a 10MP camera would not be enough. The camera's chassis aren't that attractive, it looks like an old video camera. I feel that if I were to take pictures with that in public, I'd be pretty embarassed. Even if I say I have a 39 MP camera, what's the point of having that much.

[ginginca 0]

I have an 8 MP camera that provides us with beautiful shots. When we do 11 X 17 print outs they are fabulous.However if you want to do large format photography I can see where 39 MP would be a benefit. For example, right now we're designing artwork for the side of a truck. It's 10' high.

[Jeigh1405241495 0]

Yea that's the kind of example I was thinking of, just wanting to be able to go straight from photo's to MASSIVE printouts for commercial purposes. I couldn't think of any off the top of my head but that would make sense, the more MP you get the bigger you can blow it up easily. Seems simple enough ;)Oh, and I'm pretty sure they don't intend this camera to be used by the average users, since it's going to be so expensive and it is, as you said, and odd form factor. They know its going to be for specialty use so there isn't a real need to make it pretty.

[ginginca 0]

Curious ... how much is it anyway?I can't even imagine the memory card it would take *grin*.My camera at full resolution will give us a 22Meg TIFF file. (But even a 7 or 8 Meg JPG looks great.)

[toby 0]

Curious ... how much is it anyway?I can't even imagine the memory card it would take *grin*.

My camera at full resolution will give us a 22Meg TIFF file. (But even a 7 or 8 Meg JPG looks great.)

...(after all, the RAW files this shoots are a whopping 78MB each) .... the CF-39MS, which will go for close to $40,000

[ens 0]

Haha, my camera is 3.2 Megapixels Not.Yeah, but this camera would probably be very useful for large-format photographers. And like the other person said "Amateur aerial shots" is quite right, that would be splendidly useful for that. Though, I doubt many people will buy it, it probably being in the high hundreds to low thousands price range. I'm not quite sure what large format photographers use today. But they are probably in the know-abouts of this already anyway.

[DAC1138 0]

As previously said many times, 10 MP is quite enough for any pro photographer. You'd think if you needed better quality and better resolutions you would just stick with film. If you really have to do large billboard size prints, film would be the cheaper way to go. I can't even begin to imagine what the memory cards would costs for one of these. That's a pretty funny thought. A 2 gig memory card holding about only 20 pictures. Forget about a photoshoot. You'd need a backpack full of memory units to be able to go on a wild shooting spree. (Somehow that sounds violent, shooting spree?)Heh, maybe the US government could use these cameras to take some nice, high resolution photos of supposed weapon stockpiles being hidden by certain enemies of the country. With technology like this, there's no reason why we should have pictures of stuff like this. Actually, with this thought in mind, what about satellites? They couldnt use this camera itself, but the technology that went inside of this camera could be translated into something space-worthy to take high resolution pictures of planet surfaces.Does anyone have any information about who makes the lenses for this camera?

[BuffaloHelp 24]

6-13mega pixel CCD or CMOS sensor chip cameras are designed to mimic the 35mm film. The negative 35mm film is probably the widely used format out of all photography.And then there are special negative film formats that are useful for other photography. These are often expressed as "medium" or "large" format films. The negative film used in these photo sessions are any where from 5x7 inch to 10x10 inch size. These are used for poster size, scenic landscape photography. Topography photos, contrary to belief, are taken with series of small films and combined later. Otherwise, using one giant plate of negative film with one large lens will result in vignetting--outter edge of a picture going out of focus and dark.Although the provided picture of 39mp camera is hand-held size, the more practicle application would not be used until the photo-artists really make the trasition from the traditional film to the digital film. It is said that FOX channel purchased 20mp broadcasting cameras for all their HD NFL shows--but this cannot be confirmed since HD broadcast cameras are not measured with mega pixel numbers, yet. But I would think that 30+ mega pixel CCD or CMOS sensors are used in Hollywood and broadcasting cameras first before they become widely availiable for general public.

[DAC1138 0]

So in other words, "it's a piece of junk that no one will buy." Is that what we've all determined with this little thread? I know there's probably some use for it. Otherwise that company wouldn't have spend the millions (or billions? trillions? bajillions?) of dollars developing such a camera.

[TeamEFX 0]

I seen some websites use big camera's so they can just take a big picture,and then zoom into the picture. This (HopefullY) will save time.I think i found one from digg.com.eFX

[levimage 0]

I think the cameras are in the plus +40 mega-pixels now days. This of course would be used for high end fashion or commercial photoshoots for publication or marketing. You know like prototype vehicles, marketing campaigns, or any other project when they photography company can pass off the costs to the client who wants the photos taken. That's how I understand it.Oh yeah I'm using a 10.8 MP Olympus DSLR 'Olympus EVolt E510' (then again I'm not doing the math but I think it is only a 10MP, but then again it is has a 4/3 aspect ratio) the files are +11 MP in RAW and +7.8 MP in JPEG. I Like it. OH yeah

[benfromsac 0]

My girlfriend owns one of these. She has a fashion photography studio in California where she either shoots models wearing high fashion or new products for magazine layouts. Having a $25,000 (with digital back) 39MP camera does have its advantages over other high-end medium format cameras. I see many people here saying that most midrange dslr cameras (8MP - 11MP) provide a 'good enough' image for industry standards. This is NOT true. Yes, many professional photographers do use the top of the line Nikons and Canons for their work, BUT the industry's standard has been raising slowly over the last 5 or 6 years and will continue to do so. I also noticed that many people commenting here have never used a camera that will shoot images at a higher resolution than 12MP. In my opinion, any camera with 10MP or less is just a "Prosumer" camera. I have used 2 different Hasselblad cameras. Note that I didn't say OWN haha. But, when I saw the quality and richness of detail, color, and focus from those cameras, I knew the difference. Granted, you won't be able to see much difference on your typical monitor, but there is a very noticeable difference in large layouts such as billboards and such. Once you see the difference, you just can't deny that 39MP isn't twice if not three times better than 10MP. There is also another factor here that hasn't been discussed much. Quality. In my past experience there has only been one camera manufacturer that could provide a high-end dslr that would stand up to the rigors of professional grade photo shoots. I mean a camera that can withstand 3000 shots every couple hours, day after day, month after month without a single glitch - and that's Canon. Particularly the EOS line-up. They have led the industry for so many years for building dependable systems. Trust me, when your entire business, income, and lifestyle depends on a camera, you don't want that camera to break down. Hasselblad basically surpasses Canon leaps and bounds when it comes to quality craftsmanship and dependability. The engineering is untouchable. Consider it the Rolls Royce of cameras. Its not for the typical "professional photographer." But there are a few photographers out there who need to squeeze every last sharp detail possible out of their camera. I can safely say most people will never get to see one of these cameras up close much less hold one, but I'll let you in on a little secret... The majority of people who use Hasselblads rent them. You can rent them for about $1500 a day or less per hour. Anyways, I just wanted to add my input about it since I have had the distinct pleasure of using one of these cameras. There's nothing like it.