Although image quality will increase, files this large will not fit in the average email inbox so uploading is compromised.

I have been waiting for something over 20MP that I could afford and this could be it. I will need to beef up my Mac computer to handle the bigger files, but I was already dealing with images over 125MB in Photoshop.

A 70MB file would be useable as long as computer CPU speeds and memory storage in the 50 to 100TB range is available and affordable. So that files can be processed and stored No doubt given "Moore's Law" it will happen.

Assuming noise issues etc are handled properly, the addition of these pixels will allow for creative cropping of parts of the image.

I shoot raw files that open in photoshop at 95mb it is great to have that kind of head room and quality.

It depends on cost what I have makes money why fix what isn't broke.

It may be beneficial for my studio and portrait work, but probably not so much for my sports work.

For the type of end product I need this is just about the right size file. Have wated for a year for Sony to releace this camera.

First of all the choice of answers should'nt be so limited, why the same answer twice. My answer would be 'NO' Seems to just be a waste of drive storage space. If you put two 11 x 14 prints, side by side, shot with the SONY and, lets say the NIKON D-700, I defy anyone to say that the SONY is sharper, or better in any way. I do applaud SONY for it's efforts, but what's the point...In closing, When I actually see a print and the price for the camera, than my finally opinion will be made.

Most People Like myself do not need a file of 70mb's since we are not able to keep up with all the additional equipment required for this type of files, Now we are going to need 5TB hard drives to store and work on this type stuff! I am in photography to enjoy it and not to support a Industry, If I am licky to sell a few photos great but , Lets draw the line some where on this tecnilogical War between camera Mfg's.

More is always better that is why we have medium format and even 8x10 neg.

Higher resolution sensor is a benefit -- particularly with cropped images. The undeniable downside is much slower post-processing. It's a tradeoff -- but worth it.

I think such large files would probably cause my computer to freeze.

I think the preview article makes a good point, one that has been made in other forms in the past: how much resolution is enough? A 12 MP D700 produces a superb image, which produce huge enlargements of great quality when viewed from a sensible distance. Larger pixel pitch generally results in better images.

If the image quality is quantitatively better, than yes bigger can be better. Creative opportunities might increase because more data in each image gives more to work with.

I make personal prints for home use - some up to 16x20 - using an 8 MP camera and a little careful upscaling. I don't think I would ever need more than 15 MP.

When I open a 16 bit NEF file from my Nikon D80 it's almost 60 MB from a 10 megapixel sensor. I think a comparable file from the Sony would be much larger than 70MB.

I need more input before I can decide. Right now, 8 megapixels is good enough, (it's all I can afford in the SLR market). Now, if I had money to play with I might sing a different tune. But megapixels isn't the only reason to choose a camera. Right now, let's wait and see.

The challenge is obviously backup and long-term retention. HDs are becoming cheaper but managing massive quantities of large files is still extremely time consuming if somewhat less expensive than in the past.

Current megapixel counts are more than adequate for the bulk of use that cameras are put to. Only for those making huge prints might that size file be a benefit. In other words, megapixel count has gotten to the point where it is no longer a concern.

Number one, can't afford one since it would mean switching from Nikon lenses etc. Two, don't absolutely trust Sony's Pro level equipment credibility just yet. File size is only problematic insofar as storing everything on a hard drive, and drive sizes are huge anymore. Processor speed would have an impact but anyone serious about it all will likely have a decent computer, if not a Humongo Apple Power G4 Virility machine or whatever. I've handled 200mb files on a 2.8ghz intel homebuilt with 500 megs of RAM -it's doable.

As hard drives get bigger, processors faster, and storage cheaper, this makes sense.

I can see me buying a digital camera with 24 megapixels later on, hopefully the file size will come down.

I think bigger is better but you need to make sure your computer and software is up to the task.

My Dell laptop would utterly die in it's tracks with such large files. My Corel PSP-X software would also die. I'm having hard enough time with 3 to 5 MB files.

Not for me. I am still in the learning curve on digital photography. Besides, I think that it would use up to much of my storage space in presently have

Yes! Especially for those of who shoot on the "fly" or from the hip. Sometimes you don't have time to compose the way you want and the extra pixels means you can crop in and still get a decent size print.