80MP can you imagine....

[Sachphotography]

Leaf Aptus-II 12 80MP digital camera back

This thing is nuts.

16b Tiff.....480MB that will eat up a card quick

And if that is not enough

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm 160mp!!!!!!

 

[JG_Coleman]

It sort of blows my mind that so many ultra-high-resolution cameras/backs even exist! Who buys these things???

Don't get me wrong... they're extremely cool... but, seriously, who can afford these cameras? And where are the larger-than-life, worth-every-penny photographs that these things take? I mean, really... $40,000 for a Seitz 6x17/D3 setup? There must be some seriously wealthy photographers out there to keep these guys in business.

 

[Sachphotography]

Many photog rent the cameras for shoots. You can rent stuff for good prices. A lot of this stuff is used for High Fashion and Prints that get blown up huge and or cropped but stay tack sharp. That pano would be lovely to shoot with. I would not be afraid to crop it at all.

 

[Raian-san]

I watched the History channel show "the Universe" and they said those Hubble space craft uses 150+ mp camera to be able to capture photo from far away, like light years away. I don't know man, maybe those people who designs it are people for people who study astronomy. I can't imagine buying one unless I'm super rich and taking picture of galaxies and stars light years away from us a hobbies.

 

[Garbz]

Hubble space craft uses 150+ mp camera to be able to capture photo from far away

... Really?

The Hubble's first iteration had a 0.64mpx sensor with an awesome resolution of 800x800.
The spanking new wide field camera installed on it has a resolution of 16mpx for visible, and 1mpx for near infrared.

These sensors are incredibly large in physical size. The 650mpx images you get from it are panoramas. The ability to see into space has a lot more to do with optics than anything else. Higher megapixels means less light capturing ability and more noise. So ultimately exactly the opposite of what you want in a space telescope.

 

[JamesMason]

here is an image from it. taken at iso100

 

[Sachphotography]

Cameras for astronomy are way different. I shot astrophotography from along time and the two big companies are SBIG and Apogee. Cameras for this are so sensitive to light you would not be able to use them for normal photography.
Astrophotography can get expensive way quick. I have a friend in Connecticut who has around 500,000 in his setup.

 

[supraman215]

Cameras for astronomy are way different. I shot astrophotography from along time and the two big companies are SBIG and Apogee. Cameras for this are so sensitive to light you would not be able to use them for normal photography.
Astrophotography can get expensive way quick. I have a friend in Connecticut who has around 500,000 in his setup.

Does he do weddings? :lmao:

 

[Sachphotography]

Cameras for astronomy are way different. I shot astrophotography from along time and the two big companies are SBIG and Apogee. Cameras for this are so sensitive to light you would not be able to use them for normal photography.
Astrophotography can get expensive way quick. I have a friend in Connecticut who has around 500,000 in his setup.

Does he do weddings? :lmao:

LOL no he is a doctor. Stuff for that gets so expensive it is nuts....
Optics for telescopes can range anywhere from 5k-50k easy. A good mount to carry the bigger expensive scope can be 15-50k. Cameras by SBig are 10k-50k so it adds up quick. A nice Ritchie Chretien flat field scope can set you back 60K

 

[supraman215]

like this?

Nikon 11/2000 mm Reflex-Nikkor-C - eBay (item 370426409451 end time Sep-29-10 09:11:25 PDT)

 

[Garbz]

like this?

More likely it's a fit for purpose telescope with the F-mount adapter on the back, rather than some rare obscure lens.

 

[Raian-san]

I don't know the technical stuff of those things, just watching it on the History channel and didn't record it so don't know 100% detail. If I remember correctly, they are building one that they will send out in 2012 or 2013 for us to look for planet like ours in our galaxy. The hubble or whatever it's call will be able to be able take photos of the atmosphere of the planet like ours if we even find one, to see the water, land and stuff. I wasn't talking about the one we sent out already, the new one that they a predicting to make that use Xenon or Xeon? as fuel or power instead of the one they used before. It start off slow but eventually build speed to go faster. They are hoping to go much further. I think it's fascinating. I'm no expert so someone correct me if I'm wrong. I only catch those shows once so I don't remember every details.

 

[Garbz]

Wouldn't expect anyone to remember all the details. These "cameras" are frigging insane. I like the Spitzer Space Telescope. Their InfraRed Array Camera is a 0.5mpx unit designed to capture 4 frequencies in the mid-IR range. It's cooled to -269 degC (4 degK) by Liquid Helium.

This is the telescope that is currently finding a few planets outside our solar system

 

[Sachphotography]

Most of the Cameras I am familiar with for Astrophotography are liquid cooled to increase the sensitivity of the sensor.

 

[skieur]

It sort of blows my mind that so many ultra-high-resolution cameras/backs even exist! Who buys these things???

Don't get me wrong... they're extremely cool... but, seriously, who can afford these cameras? And where are the larger-than-life, worth-every-penny photographs that these things take? I mean, really... $40,000 for a Seitz 6x17/D3 setup? There must be some seriously wealthy photographers out there to keep these guys in business.

Actually there is a logic to it. As a pro photographer do you buy a new camera every 2 to 3 years which is average or buy a super camera at $20,000 to $50,000 which will last a number of years and allow you to get jobs because of the quality of the camera you are using. Some pros can pay off the camera with 3 jobs and make it a business expense and tax write-off as well.

skieur