blue-ultra Loc: New Hampshire

A few years ago, while still serving at our state house I saw a fellow with a very large camera taking photos of our Hall of Flags. I introduced myself and asked what he was doing. He explained that he was in the process of documenting all 50 State Houses for a book. I then asked him what kind of camera he was using as I had never seen such a large camera. HE told me that he had bought the camera at a government surplus auction and that the device was a camera taken from a SR71 it took very large film. He was unable to purchase the lens as they were not offered. but he wanted the large film capability. He has a website (sorry I lost the address) and I had at the time checked it out, his images were simply awesome.. BTW this camera was so large he had it on wheels, If I recall correctly it was about 2ft square. He had made some sort of fitting to put on a regular lens (high quality)...

Just thought I would mention this as we were talking about high quality camera equipment. This stuff has been around for years, we just couldn't afford it or the government had exclusive right to it...

Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

If I recall correctly, the SR-71 camera system could resolve 6" from an altitude of 80,000ft, doing that while traveling at 2000 some MPH.
--Bob

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I am thinking the film roll as something like 5 miles long. I believe the SR71 could carry up to 3 cameras. I am thinking Land designed the cameras too...but my memory is not what it used to be...

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Doesn't always apply in this case. It would be erroneous to assume only individuals buy expensive cameras.

There are companies that make billions of dollars profits annually which have no problem assigning large budgets to their photography or art departments; if the head of the department says they need a $10,000 or $20,000 camera for their work, then they get their camera. For a billion dollar company, such expenditures are essentially pocket change. In such situation, who's the fool?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If you Google 'sr 71 camera' you can get lots of unclassified information on this.

Over time there were several cameras and lenses with several different focal lengths. The films used had widths of 70mm, 5 and 9 inches and lengths up to 10,500 feet.

The resolution improved over time and may have actually been greater than we have been told.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Before I was willing to 'go digital', I had a professional scan some 35mm Kodachrome 25 slides of mine to create 6MP images; comparing the image on my computer screen, to a projection of the original slide, every detail I identified on the slide was also on the scanned image, so I concluded that I would purchase a digital system when 6mp cameras were "affordable". Using the same logic, if film of grain comparable to Kodachrome 25 were available, using the same scanner should allow a Speed Graphic camera to create 150mp images when using the 5" x 7" variant of the camera.

That brings us back to the question of how to process and what to do with those images.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

This Fuji is very interesting. Would love to try it. Dont know if you need more than 50 MP. As said here larger camera 100 MP are for big time advertising pro job.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Let us not be fooled by the Megapixel Myth. While it is a nice piece of equipment, I showed the advertisement to my wife. She responded with, "really?" Then she muttered something about a nice dinner and flowers and a diamond necklace. She finished with I could buy Fugi's new camera after I had spent twice as much for a necklace and the leftover change I could buy that camera. So my friends, I still have to plan a nice dinner, Broadway show and a whole bunch of flowers and I'm still using my 24mp DSLR camera. As for being Mirrorless, I'm okay without it. I really don't need to see the hairs on a fly's back legs.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Would I be correct in thinking that with a 100 mpx camera I would need only one (prime) lens - that I could crop the picture drastically in PP and produce a sharp 24 x 36?
My thoughts being that, if so, the cost of the camera would be offset by not needing loads of lenses.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

When 50 MP just isn't enough.

"Why do elephants have trunks?"

Because sometimes, a suitcase just isn't enough." - Big Bang Theory

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

memory issue or software limit if yo can tell? I always wonder if we try a 10 50mpix(not uncommon) shots for a a pano or HDR, what would choke ot would it just take a lot of time.

eadler

I had a look at one yesterday at a demo. It's big and it's heavy. Oh yes, it's $10,000 for the body only. And then there are lenses to buy. If you're a pro and you're planning to use it in a studio vs walking around with it then sure go get it.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

No, you would be wrong. You could only crop it a little from 44mm to 36mm.

mrtaxi Loc: Old Westbury NY, Fort Lauderdale, FL

The GFX100 is $10,000, not so cheap and that’s just the start because medium format lenses are equally not costly then full frame lenses. The CFast compact flash cards are also pricy and with 100mg file size one will need a bunch. With the weight a Heftier tripod.

george19

The D850 is demonstrating the diffraction limitations of high pixel density. When pixel density becomes a reported parameter, ideally to people who understand that it is a hard limitation (because physics...once you are talking small number of wavelengths of light per pixel, diffraction takes over), common sense will prevail. Besides, the folks that design the sensors already know this.

BUT...larger format is a whole new game, along with larger size, bigger lenses, weight, cost.

I love that even medium count full frame cameras rival the resolution of film.