http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000430064465/

THIRTY NINE MEGAPIXELS.

That makes my brain hurt.

I wonder how fast that chip is.
Imagine trying to take a picture of a moving target and then it's gone after only half of the image has been captured by the chip...

wow!!!!

i saw a picture somewhere of the grand canyon in 22 megapixel detail.... now where was that....


EDIT: future post by 1 minute!

the ontly people going to buy that are pro's who need that kind of clarity. i mean seriously, are you gonna take a picture that can be blown up to a print the size of your house?

Why? No moniter could view even half the picture at one time.

You'd think it would be easier just to have a bunch of smaller, cheaper chips, with a specialized lens to focus the image properly on them.

Why the hell do they use megapixels for measurement anyways? How is it different from just specifying the resolution of the images it takes, which would be far more useful to me?

If it takes pictures at, say, a 4:3 aspect ratio (I dunno what it really is) then images are 7384x5538 in size, just to give you an idea.

It seems to me that megapixel can be used for image size, but that's only for uncompressed images, and then you have multiply by 3 bytes for each pixel, in this case 117mb per uncompressed image.

you do know that it's probably taking more like 11.7 GB files. i've been using a D70s lately which is only 6.1 megapixels, and the raw files are like 300 megs a piece.

Not to mention that camera could cost as much as 50k.

My teacher's husband is an architectural photographer. He could have use for such a camera. But perhaps a good old analogue one gives you a better picture for the money.