Seitz 6x17 Digital shoots at 160 megapixels

When we first spotted this new cam from Seitz, our jaws hit the floor and rebounded a few times. No, it's not the highest megapixel count we've seen, but this megalith of a camera shoots at 160 megapixels to create a native 6 x 17-cm image, is packed with an ISO range from 500 to 10,000, a read-out speed of 300MB per second, and a shutter speed of 1/20,000th second. So the next question is, how are you going to store such huge image files (nearly 1 GB per uncompressed full panorama), certainly not on your off-the-shelf 16GB SDHC card, nor the upcoming 64GB CompactFlash cards -- but rather via gigabit Ethernet to Seitz's "state-of-the-art computer system", which translates to a decked out Mac mini. So what will this much imaging power cost you? 45,500 Swiss francs ($36,266) for the "mobile version" and 42,300 Swiss francs ($33,715) for the "studio version", and we're assuming that the Mac mini is included for that price. However, given that this camera isn't quite what you'd front for a down payment on a Swiss châlet, the 6x17 Digital surely must be affordable to average working-class Zürich banker set, no? You can catch a glimpse of this bad boy at the upcoming Photokina expo in Germany, or can throw down some serious Swiss coinage now to pre-order this gargantuan cam, which won't become available until early 2007. Also, be sure to click through for two more glamour shots.

[Thanks, Amanda H.]

Read

[_habit_ @ Sep 20th 2006 6:09PM]

Pretty small screen >_>

[Aaron @ Oct 17th 2007 2:16AM]

The screen apears to be normal size like on most digital SLRs

[rutsy5 @ Sep 20th 2006 6:11PM]

Holy (*@&# that's big...

[Malameel @ Sep 20th 2006 6:13PM]

WOW thats hot, too bad in the world of evolution, people look something as silly as the screen size. This has to be the ultimate landscape digital camera.
M

[M @ Sep 20th 2006 6:14PM]

Damn, I keep forgetting the password!

[Dario @ Sep 20th 2006 6:15PM]

how would a 160mp image look like!?

[jj @ Sep 20th 2006 6:23PM]

Take any Hasselblad 6x6 and then scan the positives at 4000dpi = 9000x9000 dpi - just shoot 3 or 4 snaps at 15 degree increments and digitally combine usinga pano software = 1/10th the cost. final image = 9000x36000 pixels.

in my solution, the only drawback is the motion between snaps - sounds like this cam needs a full second to write the entire image - so it's not perfect either.

I'll keep my hasselblad for now.

[CSD @ Sep 20th 2006 6:27PM]

thats like a HD still picture camera

[LittleJoe @ Sep 20th 2006 6:16PM]

I need a towel.

[Dave @ Sep 20th 2006 6:22PM]

The screen ain't small, the camera is just huge.

[Justin @ Sep 21st 2006 4:43AM]

Something like this will probably be used a lot in the studio, not just for landscapes. Pano software just won't cut it. It's great for making pretty good landscapes, but to fool yourself into thinking it's a solution for professional studio shots ignores basic things such as lens distortion, highlights, and reflections.

Not to mention that comparing it to a scanned film image is just wrong, because as proven by a couple of experts, digital pixels capture more image info compared to film granuals. Film granuals are actually more like binary; they're either developed or undeveloped, and a small patch of them is needed to create a shade.

But thanks for playing!

[Matthew Weinreb @ Sep 20th 2006 6:28PM]

bloody hell, I would sell my granny for one of those!

[Neil @ Sep 20th 2006 6:30PM]

Daddy needs a new cam. :D That bad boy is crazy....I'm well and truly amazed.

[i3c @ Sep 20th 2006 6:34PM]

it's a scanner! boo.

[Bolo @ Sep 20th 2006 6:35PM]

Wrong. That screen is not small at all. in fact is a Plasma Screen, but comparing to the size of the whole camera it looks that small. :D

[Darth Tony @ Sep 20th 2006 6:37PM]

I can't imagine why it's so ginormous. I rented a 6x17 film camera once to do a photo for a 60 ft. billboard, it was much smaller than that.

[Diego @ Sep 20th 2006 6:45PM]

Gee... it doesn't come with the lenses... I'll keep using my Cybershot

[Ryan @ Sep 20th 2006 7:00PM]

Are you sure it's not 6x17in? 6x17 cm ain't so big...

[Dp462090 @ Sep 20th 2006 7:37PM]

"Mobile version" Haha... For some reason I can't picture a "mobile version" of that thing.

[Charlie @ Sep 20th 2006 7:37PM]

Omg can this shoot video ? HDV reinvented

[shmengie @ Sep 20th 2006 7:51PM]

highest-def porn...EVAH!!

[Rob @ Sep 20th 2006 7:54PM]

Wow, maybe this will make me a good photographer!

[Brian @ Sep 20th 2006 7:55PM]

If I could afford it, I would buy it.

"pha' you call that a camera, this, is a camera."
Show all those compact camera users who's boss.

[amoo3 @ Sep 20th 2006 8:05PM]

Thats huge!

They should stick one of those on Atlantis

[Kyle @ Sep 20th 2006 8:15PM]

Wait, it's not even an SLR? thats kinda pathetic considering the price.

[... @ Sep 20th 2006 8:18PM]

crap that is HUGE
http://www.roundshot.ch/pictures/Seitz-6x17-handheld.jpg

[Alex C @ Sep 20th 2006 8:23PM]

All digital cameras are HD. This goes way beyond that. There was something like this in PopScie a while back, but it was custom built. This would be great to put on a satellite to get super hi res images of the Earth. Just think how far you could zoom in!

[RB @ Sep 20th 2006 8:25PM]

Can I get one as a camera phone? Or maybe it'd be a phone camera.

[frogger @ Sep 20th 2006 8:25PM]

talk about huge...

[fadetowhite @ Sep 20th 2006 8:28PM]

Wow. And I thought the gigapixel project was insane... :)

[briguybri @ Sep 20th 2006 8:37PM]

Say Cheese!

[Jeff @ Sep 20th 2006 9:52PM]

ho-hum. Let me know when the 1 gigapixel one comes out.

[David Li @ Sep 20th 2006 10:36PM]

Are we supposed to picture with it or just stare at it?

[@ Sep 20th 2006 10:43PM]

Holy mama!

[Paul @ Sep 20th 2006 11:01PM]

Wow... That is the only way to accurately describe the sheer size of this thing.

I saw the picture in the origenal post, then scrolled down to the second one, and thought the screen looked small, then I get to the picture with a person in it, and DAMN. That is one BIG camera. The screen is actually probably around 4x6 inches, a pretty damn big screen it is just dwarfed by the camera.

[-ardcore Canadian @ Sep 20th 2006 11:17PM]

For the previous comment, that is neither cm or inches that is feet.
But speaking of crazy resolutions here is an interesting article for HD evolution... well for the theatre anyways from last year.
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/1719/beyond-hdtv.html?print_page=y
Highlignts include 22.2 surround sound - and I thought my 7.1 was nice ;)
7,680x4320 native resolution urg!
"NHK is demo'ing Ultra HD on 440-inch (36.7-foot) screens � which makes sense, because watching it on a regular-size set would have about as much impact as viewing an HDTV program on a cellphone." lol
"and 18 minutes of video requires 3.5 terabytes of space."

[black @ Sep 20th 2006 11:18PM]

They forgot to crop out around his neck. tools.

[Wilson Rose @ Sep 20th 2006 11:25PM]

I'll take two of them.

[nidal @ Sep 20th 2006 11:45PM]

No mention of the weight?

[anonymous @ Sep 21st 2006 12:53AM]

hah, try to get that through airport security...

[Dp462090 @ Sep 21st 2006 1:09AM]

"hah, try to get that through airport security..."
Seitz 6x17 Digital owner: "I swear, it's just a camera."

[hhjh @ Sep 21st 2006 2:06AM]

dude , is this some kind of joke?!

[JHRacing @ Sep 21st 2006 3:54AM]

I really don't understand why it's so wide. That lens can't be focusing light on a sensor that wide, so what the heck is in there? Hamsters to power it?

[benkoe @ Sep 21st 2006 7:05AM]

the roundshot D3 from SEITZ has even more megapixels: 470!!! it takes 360-panoramic pix
http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f933.cfm

[jared @ Sep 21st 2006 2:25PM]

This is the hotness. It goes on the "stupid" list right behind the Cirrus SR-22 timeshare and the Ariel Atom.

[Mr Sanguine @ Sep 21st 2006 6:50PM]

The grips look almost big enough to be handle bars! Man, they are ugly. For over $30,000 I would expect something a little less tacky looking.

[bakayaro89 @ Sep 22nd 2006 1:09AM]

Such an incredible camera..looks pretty cool!

[Chris Barrett @ Sep 22nd 2006 9:34PM]

That's just nuts. 37 grand for a camera with such a restrictive format? I'll stick to my 6x12 roll back and drum scanner.... they give me all the resolution I could ask for.

[wackybit @ Sep 23rd 2006 4:31AM]

I think this thing uses an imaging sensor, not a scanner back because the shutter speed is 1/20,000...

I'd rather buy the film version of the camera at a fraction of the price and get the most expensive film scanner I can find, it still won't cost as much as this....

[Ken @ Sep 25th 2006 1:10AM]

How are we suppose to connect that to our Telescopes to do Astrophotography??? Damn thing will weigh more than most scopes!
And how much to modify it for Astrophotography? Help Mr. Huetech!!!