Does the 200MP Hasselblad exist?

[ctz]

Bad comparison since the 200MS actually delivers 200MP.

200MS actually delivers 200MP asterisk.
Nevermind.

[hjulenissen]

I've read, I know this wonderful technology. Even I use it every day. Do not change the fact that I disagree with this naming ...
It's like an energy-efficient light bulb called the 100W. When it really is a 36W (100W equivalent)

For light-bulbs, the power label tells you how much power is drawed from the mains. A small percentage of that is converted into light, the remaining is heat. As long as most light-bulbs were based on the same technology, the label worked, because one would know that a "100W" lightbulb actually created 10 Watts (or something) of light.

When technology changed, and much more efficient light-bulbs appeared, what should one use to inform the public? I actually think that it makes sense to label it as consuming 8 Watts, but producing light comparable to e.g. a "60W light bulb". Over time, candela or some other light measure should be used.

A properly multisampled image sensor can create an image consisting of e.g. 200MP of discrete image points. Therefore, I think that 200MP-ms makes sense. Over time, I would like to see best-case lp/ph MTF50 used instead.

-h

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

For light-bulbs, the power label tells you how much power is drawed from the mains. A small percentage of that is converted into light, the remaining is heat. As long as most light-bulbs were based on the same technology, the label worked, because one would know that a "100W" lightbulb actually created 10 Watts (or something) of light.

When technology changed, and much more efficient light-bulbs appeared, what should one use to inform the public? I actually think that it makes sense to label it as consuming 8 Watts, but producing light comparable to e.g. a "60W light bulb". Over time, candela or some other light measure should be used.

The better brands mentioned the output stream in Lumen, which is much more informative for the purpose of a light generating device than the power consumption (which is interesting from a standpoint of running cost). Together, Watt and lumen are interesting to get an idea about the efficiency. Nowadays, lumen indications on packaging are demanded by law.

A properly multisampled image sensor can create an image consisting of e.g. 200MP of discrete image points. Therefore, I think that 200MP-ms makes sense. Over time, I would like to see best-case lp/ph MTF50 used instead.

I agree, although with an added bit of information if used on a discrete sampling device such as a CCD or CMOS device, i.e. the response % at Nyquist. That would avoid lensmakers designing just for MTF50-ish performance, and it tells something about the aliasing risk involved with a particular system.

Cheers,
Bart