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.

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.

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

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

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.

I do not see much point in having a 39MegaPixel camera. Yes, Benfromsac does have a point when he says the difference, however small, is just noticable, I don't think the small difference these would make when viewed at a size other than 50x50 feet would be very easy to notice.

i think it will work.
it seems reliable.

The amount of megapixels is only part of the equation. You need good lenses, of course. The CCD (I believe that's what it's called) the part that captures the image itself needs to be high quality. I saw a guy's cell phone camera with 2 megapixels compared to a regular point and shoot at 2 megapixels, and the point and shoot had a better lens and CCD, therefore came out with a much nicer picture, despite the same megapixel size.

Above all else, you need a good photographer handling your 39 megapixel beauty

I find it a bit odd that the OP states that his 10 MP is "good enough" but then goes on to indicate that film is better. Thus it seems logical that aquiring a better resolution is a good thing. Let's factor in digital photo manipulation as well. When manipulating images more pixels are always better, assuming your machine can handle it.