World's first 39 MP Digital Camera!

[Quadophile]

One of the most respected names in the camera world happens to be the mighty HASSELBLAD. A very conservative manufacturer as far as tradition goes. They have actually been working in the background developing a very high spec digital camera which has now finally been revealed to the masses. It is the 39 MP large format camera with the worlds best lenses from Carl Zeiss to choose from - THE HASSELBLAD H2D-39​

New inventions from Hasselblad have been incorporated in this camera, new RAW file format has also been incorporated which captures the image with highest resolution and creates a file having size of 78 MB! The different storage solutions are provided including Compact Flash cards.

The camera weighs 2175 g with the standard lens of 80 mm and CF card.

Price: $32,000 only

For More information download the PDF file

​

 

[Ian]

Quite funny you mention this, as I used the previous model to this ~20MP in a search and rescue UAV presentation. I'd love to be able to have a go of one of these, the resolution is INCREDIBLE!

 

[chelseafc2005]

wow that is high spec but it would drain your comps memory wuite quickly. Also what is the point on having a camera with that sort of resolution??

 

[Ian]

wow that is high spec but it would drain your comps memory wuite quickly. Also what is the point on having a camera with that sort of resolution??

Its not really for the likes of us, mainly surveying things I suppose or other technology applications. There won't be many of these sold

 

[Quadophile]

wow that is high spec but it would drain your comps memory wuite quickly. Also what is the point on having a camera with that sort of resolution??

Have you seen large Billboards? They demand high resolution pictures from large format cameras

When the professionals buy a camera worth $32,000 they can also afford to buy a computer to match that.

 

[muckshifter]

ouch ... I need a bigger walet

... and to print, a 27,000 dpi Lineatronic should fit the bill (board)

 

[Rush]

39 MP ...wow ...what do they teach in school now to get young people onto that kind of technology !! or even to design and manufacturer it. Its scary really ..

 

[Rush]

Sorry if you broke down the camera how much % wise is plastic , metal , precious metals ..thats what i mean by scary ..

 

[cirianz]

And here I was purring over my new 5MP (yeah I know it's not huge, but with a 10x optical zoom that I could actually afford it's plenty good enough for me. A great improvement over my previous 3.2MP & 3x optical).
I must admit though, even with just 5MP the amount of detail I can see on quite distant objects is quite scary (Hey, there's a guy down the warf... he's eating fish & chips... even at full zoom on the camera i hadn't seen there was anyone there till I slapped it on the computer). What someone could see with 32MP & a good computer... well, guess I'd better be a good girl then... .

 

[billyga]

I want 2 of them. one for each hand!

 

[floppybootstomp]

What someone could see with 32MP & a good computer... well, guess I'd better be a good girl then... .

You be rood you be

 

[cirianz]

You be rood you be

Me!!!! No I be sweet & innocent & nice & I neva get up to nuffink!



(gotta love double negatives )

 

[Reviewer]

I've always wondered how many pixel do you need to have the picture quality comparable to film (I mean just the details in the picture.)
I think I've read somewhere that 25MP is an estimate for 35mm film so 39MP sounds about right for large format.
Does anybody know a good MP number equivalent to film?

 

[Quadophile]

I've always wondered how many pixel do you need to have the picture quality comparable to film (I mean just the details in the picture.)
I think I've read somewhere that 25MP is an estimate for 35mm film so 39MP sounds about right for large format.
Does anybody know a good MP number equivalent to film?

You will find many websites debating this issue and to be honest some are very misleading. Many so called "experts" try to justify the numbers (pixel counts) so as not to be left behind and considered otherwise.

When comparing film to digital there are many aspects that need to be evaluated, from the click of a shutter to the final image there many stages and each as important as the other. Two different digital cameras from two different makers can produce different results, similar could be the case with two film cameras even though there are many similarities. When it comes to comparing film vs digital the cameras and the picture taking process are not similar. MP has more to do with what you wish to achieve in terms of size (final printed result) rather than to do with quality. Two different sensors from two different makers, software to program the sensor, accuracy of exposure, white balance all can render different results.

Take for instance the Nikon D70s, this camera is actually programmed in a way to under expose. The idea behind this philosophy is that a slightly under exposed image can have greater detail than a slightly over exposed one. There are advantages to this philosophy, digital is not good in handling overexposure just like slide film. The disadvantage to this is that many are not pleased with not perfect out of the box shots. The Nikon D50 on the other hand is vibrant in picture taking, however, it losses out in sharpness of the overall image to D70s. Which one would you prefer?

My personal opinion and bottom line: If one is content with print sizes upto 10x12 a good D-SLR of 6 MP is more than sufficient for anyone. If you wish to print posters of every image you create, you need the 39 MP Hasselblad

Let me provide a link for you to refer to which actually relates to a 39 MP camera

4x5" Drum Scanned Film vs. 39 Megapixel Digital