It is true there are ways to gain flexibility in your photo editing, like for cropping.

More mega pixels may be less expensive than purchasing multiple focal lengths and perhaps wiser monetarily, but for too many I believe it is also a form of laziness. Relying on a sensor stuffed with small but plentiful pixels to reduce legwork or composure skills is more picture taking than producing a quality image.

For me I prefer composure and avoid cropping as much as possible. I take my time and use skills that have developed over time to get the image I see when I compose from the start.

Simple math will tell you what you need to know when choosing pixel density. An example is 20 megapixel sensors will print images to 21.9x 14.6, and 100 mpxls will print to 49x 32.6. that's what they say but there is more...

The truth is that your lens also plays a big part in the outcome. I print regularly to 60 inches wide at 50 mega pixels using a TSE lens. I recently printed at that resolution with detail so fine you can see people holding their cell phone in the deepest part of a landscape image nearly two mile away.

Pixel density is less important than pixel quality, spacing and pitch. 9 times out of ten most are reducing the size of their image for social media plus never print large. You could do well with 10 megapixels if you do not crop or print big.

The result and use of your image is all that maters, so understanding pixel overkill is possible, plus the fact that you can achieve more with composure and good glass might be something more important to think about.

any image edited under two-feet wide means a 20 mega pixel sensor will be more than enough. Additionally a tilt shift lens can turn your 20 mega pixels into 50 in under a minute, an option mostly ignored.

One of the best learning methods to consider is to use only one fixed focal length each day for a week and force yourself to move forward and back to compose regardless of look vs focal length.

Understanding composure, practice, a good lenses and avoiding being a picture taker will be much more valuable than purchasing a 100 megapixel camera body that will most likely slow down your computer... and eventually be reduced to 6 mega pixels for things like magazine or social media needs...

The horse is not quite dead yet i will assume...

I often see and read posts about the discrepancies of results between different camera makes with different lenses on each and the resultant differences of the images. Why wouldn't there be differences? If one wants to get the same results in photographs from two cameras, why not use the same make and model camera with a lens made specifically for that camera brand? My thoughts are that for consistency in IQ, color, and resolution Use the same brand of cameras with the same brand of lens on each. We all apparently agree that one camera is going to have a slightly different color and quality than another make or even model. That's why we each have our preferred brand and model of camera. We also all have different preferences in post processing (if used) to adjust our final version of our photos. Just my thoughts and musings.