Jan 28 2008Camera Has Whole Bunch Of Megapixels

stupid

All they need is a giant neck strap to make Japanese tourists everywhere the happiest people on earth.

http://theunsoberlife.com

This sooo old!

I personally had seen this camera a while ago (Sept 2006 issue of Popular Photography): http://www.popphoto.com/photonews/3061/seitz-to-show-6x17-panorama-digital-camera.html

And thought it was am amazing camera, but way too expensive. The part that costs so much isn't the camera itself, but the Seitz D3 Digital ScanBack (first item on this page): http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f931.cfm

The images that come out of the camera are amazing, very nice, very well done. And if you think this panorama camera is expensive, strap on another $1,200 and you get the D3, which at 80mm can take 470 Mega Pixels.

Granted that doesn't compare to the 4 GIGA PIXELS from GigapixlProject.org , but it's still impressive. These cameras take amazing shots, seen here: http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f941.cfm

Overall a great camera, with amazing specs. I wish I could afford them...though I could always get the 6x17 body ($5412) or the D3 body ($6615) and flaunt it, pretending I own a camera more expensive than a lot of affordable and some attainable but unfordable cars, but...nah, I can't afford even the bodies.

i like big butts and i cannot lie.

That's an ass load of pixels.

For an average person is there any reason to have more than a 5MP camera? I mean we don't have printers or monitors to justify that many pixels, it's stupid.

#7, there's a common misconception about relating either zoom or MegaPixel size to "quality." Honestly, if you were to print a 1MP image, it would roughly be the size of an 8.5 x 10 print. Resolution plays a roll in quality, and zoom is confused a lot too. Optical zoom is what one should concern one's self with, because digital zoom is not a good selling/buying point (digital zoom, the camera crops the image and sharpens it a bit).

So for average pictures, people don't need more than 1MP since a lot of prints are no bigger than 8.5x10's. You get a camera with amazing color reproduction, a low light dispersion lens, low color abberation, good color and light metering.

Besides, if you look at the ordering information from the website, they are marketing to companies, not consumers.

Meh. I use a 50's Speed Graphic 4x5 camera, and scans from that neg have weighed in at 160 MP, using a flatbed negative carrier... I've got a 24 inch print next to me here and you could count every blade of grass, very sharp.

Haha, it's funny because your eye's max "megapixel" resolution is about 580.

Most people can't even tell the difference between 300dpi and 150dpi at a normal viewing range.

Still, i want one!

For real people is that stupid, the quantity of pixels do not have a direct relationship with the quality of the image, it's not about pixels, it's about the sensor for example take a normal 10 or 12 megapixel cam and then try the shoot with a SLR (canon if possible), you will realize the diference, so don´t let the high number of pixels blind your eyes, is not worth it, and you can do the same with a normal digital camera and a photoshop tool included since CS2 was released where you can take many pictures of the same panorama and then gather them in only one picture achieving the same shoot.

so would I spend my money on such a piece of unworthy technology?

by the way if you try the thing about the normal digital camera versus the SLR one you can put the SLR the half of pixels, I mean if you try 12 on the normal put 6 in th SLR, so you can see the difference.