Pentax busts out Hasselbladian 31.6 megapixel 645 Digital

Pentax has apparently tapped Kodak to provide its 31.6 megapixel KAF-31600 medium format CCD for the upcoming 645 Digital, which would seem to be the company's highest resolution digital camera to date. So far all that's known from the pre-PMA announcement is that the 645 will sport both SD and CF slots, and will ship with a specially-built 55mm lens that's also compatible with 645-series SLR film cameras. We should find out more about this behemoth in early March -- although possibly not pricing and release info -- but one thing we can say for sure is that if it's priced anything like the Hasselblad H3D-31 whose sensor it shares, expect to pay out well into five figures.

[Thanks, David N.]

[GJP303 @ Feb 21st 2007 7:05PM]

Why do you need 31 megapixels?

[chych @ Feb 21st 2007 7:12PM]

You, certainly don't. Studio work, especially blowing up images to really, really big (large poster size, etc) can benefit from more megapixels, with higher print resolution.

[jptech @ Feb 21st 2007 9:20PM]

hi-res boobies!

[Hitchcock @ Feb 21st 2007 8:06PM]

Higher megapixels are used for 2 things. Professional photography work, especially for billboards and building sized adverts. Also the higher the mega-pixels, the more detail you get.

It lets you be "lazy" with the photographs, and then crop your photos later for the best results, while still having good detail.

[craig @ Feb 21st 2007 8:18PM]

"It lets you be "lazy" with the photographs, and then crop your photos later for the best results, while still having good detail."

Photographers who can afford this equipment are unlikely to be "lazy". If you don't know why you want resolution like this then it's not for you and you most likely don't have the experience to use it effectively.

[Anand @ Mar 10th 2007 3:41PM]

Hitchcock wrote:
It lets you be "lazy" with the photographs...

Actually it allows designers some latitude when using the photograph while remaining true to the photographer's vision. We cannot always use the proportions given us and photographers don't always know the compositional elements of the end product. And the cost of decent retouching, even in this day of Photoshop can be prohibitive.

And it can allow a little "relaxation" into some shoots ;¬)

[shmengie @ Feb 21st 2007 8:27PM]

yawn...let me know when the 3.1 gigapixel camera comes out...

[Collin @ Feb 21st 2007 8:43PM]

31,648,512 Pixels
at 6496x4872 and at a 4:3 Ratio
is Massive.

[Darnell @ Feb 21st 2007 10:19PM]

Wow. Last time I read about this camera it was looking at 18MP and in the $12-16,000 range. This will easily go for more than $22,000. Camera's of this magnitude are usually for commercial applications--i.e. publications, in-store posters (where you're right next to the image as opposed to billboards that's farther away), any type of promotional material, architectural prints, etc.
Though cropping is a plus--but it's more important not to waste pixels if you don't need too. Besides the mirror is bigger than 35mm cameras (produces vibrations when handheld at slower shutterspeeds) and often times the camera is mounted on a tripod.
The real "big" deal here is that it looks to be a medium format DSLR--not a camera with a digital back like most traditional MF cameras.

[pbg @ Feb 22nd 2007 9:41AM]

good to see this, that 'medium format digital' is keeping moving, and wont be the exclusive realm of hasselblad etc (the high end imagers). Hope they price this a little low and it gets picked up by some studios!

[Anonymous Coward @ Feb 22nd 2007 6:24PM]

> 31,648,512 Pixels
> at 6496x4872 and at a 4:3 Ratio
> is Massive.

Tiny. Most of the Playboy Centerfols I have are in the range of 80 too 100 megepixels per pic.

[john h @ Apr 28th 2007 4:20PM]

What camera are they using that shoots 80-100 mega pixels? Even the hassies are at 39, and I doubt the the playboy photogs are using medium format anyways.

No, your playboy models are probably shot with a MarkII at 16 MP.

[Nish Vamadevan @ Feb 22nd 2007 10:13PM]

This is what I call an SLR

But its way too expensive and not ideal at the time being...

[kombizz @ Feb 23rd 2007 9:06AM]

How much is the price of this monster?

[Matt Sandy @ Feb 23rd 2007 11:14AM]

I was actually going to pick up the non digital version of this, but figured developing the large negatives would get too expensive.

[Big Pixman @ Mar 9th 2007 1:56AM]

OK so this Pentax 645 shares the same sensor as the Hasselblad H3D-31. But the big question is do the Pentax lenses measure up to those by Hasselblad? I don't think we're comparing an orange with another orange, are we?