Foodguy wrote in post #18142864
I think it has to do with a general concept that 'bigger is always better'. If I were buying today I'd probably land in the 40-60mp range based on price and other considerations (iso range/ability for long exposures, etc).
My *little* 22MP back produces ~45 MB TIFF files which we then go on to edit. Clients often ask for saved photoshop layers which can bloat that original image to 4-6 Gigs. If my math skills are correct, that makes a 100MP file close in the 20 GIG range which is way to much for anything that I'm doing. My images are typically reproduced via off-set printing and normally not much larger than 36x40 window poster sized, and when they're reproduced larger (billboard) they're printed with such a course screen that it really wouldn't make much difference what the original was...imo. Again, for me and my situation my back is ideal.
Honestly speaking, even i feel more than enough with 60mp, i was using 39mp before it but i traded in to get the 60mp, and it is very good, i just feel i should post in forums where members aren't so addicted for higher latest MF gear, so i avoid LuLa and GetDPI for what is worth.
Here, i feel this MF section has less interest, and same with MF, members are more interested about what new Canon cameras/lenses or non Canon lenses gear to test and fill many threads with tests, and when i look at those latest images threads all what i see are just good photos that aren't much different than older models/versions, but still buying the newest and keep buying even as you said it won't make the photos better, but again someone will jump to find/tell excuses/reasons for buying new latest gear.