I said in my first post "Don't use a higher resolution than you actually need". One of the determinants would be how large you intended to print. But if you could see beyond the loss of micro-detail, upsizing software would allow you to print large from a low res camera.

I do mostly landscapes, and it's widely recognised that high res is desirable, probably because it allows the camera to render things like distant foliage, grass etc with more detail, so I'm not completely dismissive of the desirability of high resolution. But I'm also aware of the desirability of strong, accurate colours and good noise performance at something other than base ISO, and I'd be reluctant to sacrifice any of those just for some extra micro-detail. A while back somebody posted a pic from a D3s taken at ISO 16000 and it was impressive how robust it looked. I would choose that kind of solidity over micro-detail if there had to be a choice (and if affordability wasn't an issue).

I don't know much about the Sonys that you mention, but I do know that the performance of some of the oldies-but-goldies is still impressive compared to more modern offerings. I'm thinking of cameras like the D3s, D4s, 5D mk1 and the like - which can be had at a reasonable price second hand. If you don't intend to clock up tens of thousands of shutter releases, second hand pro cameras seem like a good choice to me. I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing what the new Sony A7S iii is going to be like, but the price will keep it out of my reach.

RG (from the land of mint Aeros).

It would be interesting to know exactly what is compromised to maintain dynamic range in modern high res cameras. I suspect that in-camera processing does a good job of hiding the shortcomings that you get from smaller photo sites, but as you say - at a cost. And the claimed extra high ISO performance is questionable and doesn't seem to be entirely realistic. That's why I think the A7Siii will be interesting. It'll be a chance to compare on a level playing field. We should have larger photo sites combined with the best of modern sensor design and in-camera processing, which I suspect will produce some undeniable real world benefits.

(Scotland can claim to be the inventor of all sorts of things, but mint Aeros isn't one of them. I was assuming that foreigners see the UK as being "the country" with Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales as sub-divisions. Thanks for seeing Scotland as a country in its own right ).

The A7Siii is the next incarnation of the A7s series and it's not out yet. All we have to go on is rumours - which abound - and according to those rumours the resolution could be anything from 14 to 36 MP. A value at the lower end of that range seems more likely. According to comments from a Sony exec, it will be capable of 4K video recording, so 12MP would be a possibility. I think it's interesting that it's not 6K video, which would have meant a higher resolution (around the 24MP mark, I think).

There used to be a clear link between photo site size and dynamic range. I would consider it strange if that factor has become completely irrelevant. I've noticed a connection between dynamic range and the generation of processor used in the camera. My suspicion is that that's the more relevant factor, but I'm guessing.....