Prices go up or down after Christmas?

Thanks again for a great discussion. I've been studying this for about a week - so a lot to learn! Among the cameras in question, Nikon clearly seems better, but perhaps the pros are in a different ballpark, like 50MP? Or maybe there are other issues that move them to Canon? Some of what I've read suggest quality control issues with Nikon while Canon is more reliable.

So FF is better than APS. Better glass is more important than better camera. More MP is better than fewer. I knew that much already. But, I'm also getting that DXO is not the be-all and end-all, but in the absence of anything better, looking at the PMP for a lens/camera combo (which I've been doing) will be about as good an indicator of IQ as you can get. I'm also getting is that it is a good bet to go better quality refurb than lesser quality new. I had a real question about that.

So, I'll look for the best refurb deals and go form there. I can either go budget on the body, get some good glass, and upgrade later, or try to get to 36MP. From what I read, other than Canon or Nikon direct, Adorama, Amazon, and B&H are trustworthy. Anyone else? What sort of certification or guarantee should I be looking for?

Thanks!

With a 24 MP sensor and a PERFECT lens, you should be close to 24 perceived megapixels (PMP) - DXO's terminology. A good lens loses very little in the way of resolution; a bad lens loses more. I was thinking about 16 PMP as the limit for 16x20 prints. I downloaded a chart that says 16.6 MP gives you 249 DPI at 16x20. The chart uses 200 as the cut off for "superb" results. The Canon 6D gets you there with the right lenses (according to DXO).

I'll have to take look at Nikon D800 and D610 as well as some APS cameras with 24MP like the Canon 80D. I know FF beats APS, but isn't that more about noise rather than res with the same MP - smaller pixels packed closely together? Not an issue at low ISO?

Might APS with better glass would be a better investment than FF with lower quality glass? I was thinking Canon 80D or Nikon 5300 plus Sigma 18-35 and Tamron 70-200.

Why is the 610 better for landscape than the 750?

Thanks for the great input! I did have a typo in my original post - I meant Canon 6D, not D1.

I'm a newcomer here, and I'm in the market for a new DSLR - haven't done any serious shooting in decades since I used a Canon FT QL 35mm SLR (though I do have some great shots taken with my Sony CyberShot RX100).

I'm wanting to do gallery quality 16x20 landscape shots and my research tells me I need at least 16MP. My budget puts me in the $2,000 range, and I'm leaning toward Canon D1 or Nikon D750,and it would seem the Nikon is worth the extra bucks. If I go up a level, I can't afford glass!

According to DXO, kit lenses won't get me where I want to be. I know actual use beats lab results, but I'm not going to try them both for a month and then decide, so I'm doing my research as best I can. DXO consistently rates sensor quality on Nikon above Canon in the same price range or MP range. Are they biased or does this seem accurate?

Or, will you tell me gallery quality 16x20 with a $2000 DSLR, forget it!!

Or, will you say don't be so fussy, either will be fine, even with kit lenses like the Canon 24-105 f4 L IS USM (not a cheap lens, but DXO only gives this combination 14 PMP.)

Thanks!