Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

It must matter to the pros. A 20MP used Phase One medium format digital back can be had for a couple of thousand dollars. A new 80MP back costs $33,000. Whatever the 80MP back does that the 20MP back doesn't is worth about $30,000 to those who buy it.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Don’t forget about pixel shifting too. My em1ii, although it only has a 20mpx 4/3 sensor, is capable of producing an 80mpx raw file by shifting the image around in camera.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

There are lots of size options, not just the two you list. At minimum, you have to consider MFT smaller than APS-C, and MF larger than FF. As prices for silicon continues to fall, FF cameras will becomes less expensive, but so will MF, and MF will inevitably come to be preferred again by professionals shooting landscape and portrait photographs, while something smaller will be preferred by those shooting sports and wildlife photographs.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

What you're not taking into account is technology.
Probably everyday, pixel tech challenges are progressed and moved forward for the better, mitigating this crowding that you speak of!!
Today's sensors are NOT your fathers sensors, of even a year ago.
SS

JPL

Yes, you are right.
I read an article yesterday about 0.8 micron pixels in a new sensor. And I also read about that it is possible to improve sensors a lot by using thicker wafers that can absorb more photons and put barriers between the pixels to prevent photons from crossing pixels. There is something new happening all the time in sensor technology.

Tjohn Loc: Inverness, FL formerly Arivaca, AZ

Larger sensors generally require larger lenses. At some point the smallest sensor cannot get smaller and the lenses will be small.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Yes, every man knows size matters.

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

I've never really understood the MP race. A bigger format will always provide a better image (subject to everything else being the same). You need to consider what you are going to do with the final image, if you are going to view on a reasonable monitor or even a TV screen, then 8mp is sufficient, but with 8k soon to be offing then 32mp will be needed to make the most of your image - but only if your glimmers can keep up.

For those that do commercial work blowing up shots to poster size, larger formats are available. And there is always the issue of storage and memory capacity. Bigger isn't always better.

Years ago, our sprog had a FinePix bridge camera, just 3mp, but FinePix claimed the quality of a 6mp image was possible because of some clever software inserting false pixels in between actual pixels taking their information from the surrounding 4. It was noticeably better than the subsequent 4mp version but the public wanted more mp's over making best use of what you had.

stevetassi

I wouldn’t buy a camera anymore based upon its MP’s. There are other specs far more important. Manufacturers will keep increasing the MP count because of perceived value.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

SO, you would buy a 3 MP cause size does not matter?

stevetassi

Your question is irrelevant because none of the current models meet that spec.

ELNikkor

I knew nothing about sensors when I bought my first digital camera, a pocketable Pentax waterproof in 2006. When I did a group photo of my class with that camera, and did the same shot with my Nikon FM2 with Kodak 200 pint film, blew the negative photo up to 11x14 and printed the digital on my $50 HP printer on F4 legal size copy paper, the Pentax image was sharper with less grain! That was 11 years ago, folks, and there's been a heap of progress since then. Now, with an aging D5100, and the advent of the D850, I'm tempted to go up to FF, just so when the ultimate photo-op comes along, I don't have to wonder if I could have gotten a better photo with a better camera...

Allan Cavalcanti Loc: Rio de Janeiro

I am an engineer and I´ve dealt with coronary interventional systems as a product specialist and sales manager.
It uses a huge, large sensor named Flat Detector. There are mainly 2 market sizes: 20 cm (17 x 17 cm) and 50 cm diagonal (30 x 40 cm). General Electric has one 40 cm x 40 cm size. It is really huge and has an incredible resolution. It is a dynamic detector so it is capable of acquiring 30 frames/second as a regular video camera. And it can "see" small and tiny vessels around the heart and brain (where things get very complicated as brain vessels are as wide as a hair wire).

When they started 20 years ago, Dynamic Detectors were just a promise of increased resolution and less X ray usage (yes it converts X rays to light and then to electric current) - a 2-step conversion. Today no one remembers the old days with films, chemicals, dark room, etc. And its resolution capability is still growing, based on MP packing AND detection material development (it is Silicon based detector).

For me, this preamble serves as my viewing point. It is not only packaging more megapixels, it is also based on sensor material and computational power that is available and can still be affordable: a Flat Detector alone as a replacement part may cost up to US$ 100.000 and the whole system ranges from US$ 400k to US$ 1,2MM.

You can pack all this stuff into a dSLR but few people would be eager to pay for it. I believe that all the needed technology is already available to pack more megapixels into a DSLR, to have more processing power, to come out with more crystal clear images as digital imaging technology has come this far in other areas. But does it make sense to crank in more megapixels just for the sake of technology? Who would pay for it?

I the medical field (which is a critical application) we are not talking about more megapixels anymore.
The resolution we have is able to see the thinnest "wire hair" vessels in the deep brain. We already CAN see it all.
The question now is how to get the same image quality with LESS light, or indirectly speaking, LESS RADIATION. In our DSLR world it would be less light or need to push up ISO. I have the feeling that the biggest photo industry challenge is to come up with better and better light sensitivity sensors. And this means better sensor materials that can be fast (also for video shooting), reliable and still affordable.

And from my standpoint I think there will be a disruption in this market as computing power increases: the lens emulation via software, that is, a single lens capturing the image ahead of it and transforming it to recreate wide angle, or telezoom effects. I believe we are more prone to get there with mirrorless cameras.

I may be uninformed as I am an amateur. This may be already happening somewhere...

Allan

ELNikkor

@ Allan - Someone somewhere is going to be transporting one of those medical cameras in the back of a van, will back up to an over-look at sunset, open the doors, and take one awesomely detailed photo.

Allan Cavalcanti Loc: Rio de Janeiro

Good idea.... :-)
But first some japanese company will make it ridiculously small so it will be carried in the pocket to the beach...