>>12094301/p/ here, not as simple as you might think:
>megapixel count = image quality Nope, dynamic range and low light performance are far more important.
>megapixel count = image resolution Nope, that tiny 108 MP sensor can't make any use of its resolution due to the optics in front of it as light diffracts at the tiny aperture of only about 2-3 mm
Keep in mind Canons flagship camera, the 1DX MK3, has "only" 20 MP on a large sensor the size of a 35 mm film negative.
These pixels are huge, insanely light sensitive (max ISO is over 800.000) and have an insane dynamic range.
Due to the much larger optics and pixels, diffraction isn't realy an issue untill you close the aperture realy far.
Also 4K is 8,3 MP, so a composite of 4 images from that camera is near 4K resolution and more importantly sharp.
There are also more issues:
>camera needs to be radiation hardenedLarger structures in microelectronics handle radiation better than smaller ones.
>camera needs to be developed and proved reliable ahead of launchThat takes quite some time...
>optics need to be developed for that specific applicationCan't use normal lenses on Mars, they need to be able to work in a near vacuum and deal with the conditions there.
