Kodak announces 39 megapixel CCD

Kodak may have thrown in the towel in the DSLR market, but that doesn't mean the company has completely abandoned the high-end photo market. In fact, according to the company, it's gone to the absolute highest end, with two new CCDs that are among the largest available commercially. The KAF-31600 boasts 31.6 megapixels, and the KAF-39000 has 39 megapixels. The CCDs are targeted at pros, and will be incorporated into digital backs for medium-format cameras. One early customer is Phase One A/S, which plans to use the CCDs in its previously announced P30 and P45 backs. How much will 39 megapixels run you? No pricing is out yet, but Phase One's current top model, the 22 megapixel P25, goes for about $30,000. That puts it at over $1,300 per megapixel, so don't be surprised to see the P45 going for as much as $50K.

[sleepmon @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

And in 5 years, expect it to be in every $300 consumer digcam sold at Walmart...

[carpeicthus @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

God I hope not. The last thing I want to see is the average Wal-Mart customer in 39MP.

[Kevin @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

I, personally, will be holding out for the 1-gigapixel CCD's ;-)

[TIMMAH! @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

I think Kodak's on the wrong track. Canon can probably do the same thing in CMOS for a 1/10th the price and with 10x the yield.

[Brian K @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

39 MP! Kodak better invest flash drive card to hold more than 2 pics. per card.

[Anonymous @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Does anybody need 39 megapixels?

[Anonymous @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Does anybody need 39 megapixels?

[bkim @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

i dont think storage would be an issue... but transfer rates would.

[Morgan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

they used to say, Does anyone really need 1 Gigabyte of ______ (Fillin Memory Descption here)

[EnhanceYourCalm @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Just shoot med/lg format film FFS! Huge waste of money. >35mm size CCDs are not there yet.

[Kim Laughton @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

"Canon can probably do the same thing in CMOS for a 1/10th the price and with 10x the yield."

And don't you think they would have if they could?

[emm @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

isnt 39 mp more than in military surveillance satellites?

[InSaNeBoY @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

EnhanceYourCalm, film is a huge waste of money for some. this chip is obviously aimed at the professional market. At one of my previous jobs we went through 500 sheets of 4x5 film(plus processing) and around 750+ sheets of T-55 polaroid every day. Switching over to digital was a huge money and time saver even though the cameras we bought were very pricy (leaf volare) For a pro photographer those cameras more than pay for themselves.

[CCD CMOS @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

To add a little more fuel to this fire, 39 megapixel is still far from the largest. Fairchild Imaging http://wwww.fairchildimaging.com makes a much larger CCD in terms of both resolution and size: 85 megapixels and 81 x 81 mm. The poster who suggesting sticking with medium or large format film had it almost right: stick with medium or large format and you'll get superior results with either film or digital. In this case, size matters.

[CCD CMOS @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Sorry that Fairchild Imaging link should have been http://www.fairchildimaging.com

[CCD CMOS @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

>>> isnt 39 mp more than in military
>>> surveillance satellites?

Yes and no. A common surveillance device is only 5k x 5k or 25 megapixel. However, high performance reconnaissance satellites often use linear or TDI CCDs with even higher resolution (12k or more).