I have the A 200, and am very happy with it. I will wait, but I am stuck on Sony. Great camera.

I believe that 12MP are sufficient for the quality of work I do.

Bigger is not better.

I could a use for 70M files but It does not fit with the work I presently do.

The large file size will enable the user to have a lot of flexibility and control of the final outcome of each capture. With 70MB files, there is so much image information that can be stored, but the true test is quality of the sensor.

If one makes big prints and worries about resolution, the bigger the file, the better the image. It is the same theory that led me too large format (8x10) photography.

I need to get the best out of the camera that I own now (a Pentax K20D), and not keep upgrading. Just when it makes sense to do so.

If I were to produce photographs the size of billboards, maybe 24 megapixel would be useful. Perhaps croping/composing after the shot is what I'm after, then maybe a 70MB file is justifiable. For now 12 megapixel seems to offer the right balance of resolution to file size.

As a pro, it would make a difference when a particular assignment demands it. For most jobs it's overkill. Use the right tool for the job.

Perfectly happy with 10 mb.

Instead of more pixels I wish they would perfect 10 or 12 or 16 pixels in a full sized chip. It's already time consuming enough transferring, archiving, editing, manipulating 12 megapixel files even with the latest iMac and CS3. I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns on megapixel count.

Much overkill. Don't think it will benefit anything. Just a sales gemick.

It's stupid to get a big file size when normal use doesn't dictate for most users.

Not doing anything that requires that size of a file.

Currently my cameras take 16MB and I store 24-28MB after photoshop but 70MB would sure eat up storage in TIFF format oe even RAW in the archives. Luckily price per GB of HD's with platters is coming down. Wonder what 70MB after working in PS would turn into? It's really not that excessive for me , I've got 100-150MB panoramics stored already.

First of all I don't need files that large. Secondly it will jam my workflow.

Bigger is not always better, so I'll wait to see how it works for most people.

For what I do, a camera of this size serves no purpose for me. Other than to allow me to brag that I own a 24 megapixel camera! I don't think the average photographer needs this, they have just been brain washed into thinking that they do.

I'm not really awaiting further developments. I'm tired of the ever increasing compute requirements. Upgrading a camera means upgrading my PC too. I'd prefer more bit depth, better high ISO quality and around 10-11megapixel. The files sizes are too large for the huge quantities involved.

Unless you need to print something the size of a wall mural, a file this size is simply overkill. Good luck storing these files...

It shows that Sony is serious about the SLR cameras.

Larger file sizes impact the workflow, computer and network hardware and time devoted to post processing. Time and hardware/network resources for file management and backup will be two to four times greater. A gigabyte network is not out of the question for moving files of this size. But then the hard drive access and write times will be a bottleneck unless increased dramatically. These are not investments many photographers will want to make on top of the camera and lenses.

I'm using a 6mp Konika Minolta DSLR. Love it, but would purchase the SONY Alpha700 if the price cmoes down a bit.

They would be nice to look at. However, I wouldn't have anyway to process them without a serious hardware upgrade.

I routinely work on a modest computer with bigger scanned files from prints or large format negatives. This permits file downsizing for printing with little loss of quality.

I don't see any need for a bigger file. Most of my prints are in the 4x6 to 8x10 range and 10MP is plenty.

In my opinion, there are few instances where such high resolution would be needed, perhaps if one has to crop excessively on a regular basis, not sure why that would happen, or if you need to make really huge prints that will be viewed up close, and I don't need to do either of those. I've been using a 6 MP DSLR for 4 years and plan to upgrade to a 12 MP model soon and I'm anticipating that 12 MP will probably be enough resolution for me, judging by the results I'm seeing from people using the cameras that I'm considering buying.

This camera is most likely for pros who have a bunch of money to spend on equipment. It has to be quite a bit more expensive than the A750... And a new computer with more RAM, faster processor, new larger printer, etc.

Shooting the Canon 5D with its 13mp gives me more than enough resolution for the portraits I do. I believe the larger image sizes would slow down my processing time. So right now, I'll wait until I can upgrade my computer systems to handle such large files before investing in the new mega-mega pixel cameras.

Given the extremely high quality of the 24x36 inch images I have printed from both 6 and 10 megapixel slr cameras, I am not at all sure we need a camera functioning at 24 megapixels - unless the sensor is at or above the 24x36 size of film. With teh software now available for enlargements, i.e., Genuine Fractals and Blow Up, it is possible to take enlargements to incrediblle sizes with seemingly no apparent loss of quality. In a word, no, I don't need a 24 mp camera for what I do.