For most everyone, pixel resolution at 20MP is more than enough for any editing and / or printing needs. That 20MP to 20MP range is what the 'working professionals' need for a 2-page spread (magazine print), as if anyone was still printing or purchasing physical magazines in 2024. We see this reality in the slow upward migration of the top (flagship) pro DSLR models.

Examples:

Nikon
D3X - 24MP, 2010
D5 - 20MP, 2017
D6 - 21MP, 2020

Canon
1Ds-III - 21MP, 2007
1DX - 18MP, 2011
1DX-III - 20MP, 2016

Meanwhile, at the same time those flagship models were being released, all around the $6000 per body price range, even the entry-level models were reaching a standard 24MP resolution. The 'pro' full-frame models at one level-down from the 'flagship' bodies reached a 30- to 50MP range for the same timeframe, examples like the D810, D850 and 5DIV models, as well as the top full-frame mirrorless bodies typically all coming out around 45MP.

Personally, for my wildlife photography, I can 'see' the difference in cropping into the results in FF cameras with the same focal length lenses, where one body is 22MP and the other 24MP. I have more options with the images (camera) that has more pixels, even just a 2MP difference. I've also seen demonstrations of the massive print sizes and massive fine details of architecture and cityscapes captured at 45MP.

But again, for most everyone not shooting distant wildlife and not printing anything, buying bodies (sensors) beyond 24MP is just wasting money on capabilities you'll never need.

It's much easier to zoom in on a screen to view details in a picture, but a large print, such as found in public places and sometimes in a home, is for others to view, and when I encounter such pictures, say in a restaurant, I do "look around" for detail. Large format pictures from the 1800s and earlyl 1900s are particularly interesting to me. I like to see in detail what people were doing, what cars they were driving, what they were wearing, what businesses people shopped at etc. I don't own the original to view those pictures on a computer screen or possibly on a large TV. More pixels will make details in a large print easier for OTHERS to see details.

If it sounds like a provocative question, it was intentional.

A discussion took place recently on another thread that got me thinking about it. So I did some comparison's using a 24MP A7 III and a 45.7MP Z7 using each camera's 85mm f/1.8 lens (at f/2.8). Those lens resolutions are very close according to DXOMARK.

I viewed the results on a 2k (1920x1080, about 2MP) and 4k (3840x2160, about 8MP) monitor and couldn't tell them apart.

I printed the original full-size images on 8.5x11 Red River UltraPro Satin paper at their best settings. I still could not tell them apart.

Then I exported each image at a width of 1920 and 3840 pixels as well as at their full resolution. They will be attached to the next post.

The only time I could tell them apart was at the full resolution pixel peeped at 100%. But the only way anyone can see that is on a monitor where the magnified image is way too big to fit the screen.

There is a message here and some of you aren't going to be happy with it.

Once someone posts an error on the internet it gets propagated without question, hearsay going berserk.

The NIH does not agree. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10848/

Neither does the American Academy of Ophthalmology. https://www.aao.org/eye-health/anatomy/cones

We see colors via the cones. Those two sources don't agree either (4.5 million or 6 million cones). Either way, the human eye is just a D70. It's a good thing most of us have two.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet unless you know you can trust the source.