What's the advantage over a scanner? Speed?
Very interesting company, and from what I know one of the first in the world to take delivery of that sensor.
Want to flatbed scan a 2" tintype or even a 4x6 photo? You'd probably be better off using a camera instead, as you can fill the cameras imaging sensor with the subject. You can also control the lighting conditions better with a camera setup, so you don't get the obligatory flatbed scanner reflections.
A scanner essentially just moves a single pixel over the source material. The resolution is limited not by how much of the flatbed you cover, but by how small that single pixel is and how precisely it can be moved. (And even the size of the sensor is fungible, if you can move it precisely you can oversample.)
Scanners have their downsides, no doubt, but raw resolution is their upside. The downside is the time it takes for a scanner to make an image -- that is why we carry around ultra-expensive silicon wafers for photography, and not a single light-sensitive element that moves around under the lens's image circle.