kcbrown wrote in post #13842332
Funny, that's what they said about the 1Ds3 when it was released with a whopping 21 megapixels, and when the 50D was released with a whopping 15 megapixels.
Convenient rewriting of history. People complained about the 21Mp on the 1DsIII because of what it did to the 1Ds's lowlight ability (choked it). File size was rarely the issue, though it did come up (and still does).
The 50D cranked up industry leading MP on its itty bitty sensor and then got dragged over the coals for industry leading banding. Another low point for Canon, coming not far after the 1DIII debacle.
Nowadays, everyone buys the 5D2 because it's got that ultra-high-resolution full frame sensor which makes it the best camera for landscapes and portraits.
Videographers think you are making this up as you go. More specifically, what FF options exist for Canon shooters that you could vet your assumption against? All things being equal, would the 5DII have sold just as much had it 16MP? I think it would have possibly sold more (with the performance gains lower MP implies), but neither of us know for sure.
Make up your mind. Either you want a bunch of resolution or you don't. If you don't, go buy a 5D classic or, horrors of horrors, a crop camera. Or use mRAW on the 5D2 or the 7D or 60D.
There has been very little flip-flopping here. People want better pixels, not more pixels. (Over a year ago, DigitalRev had a poll with 3000+ respondants and higher MP was the 8th most requested feature in an upcoming camera.) And it's been that way for a very long time and it will stay that way for a very long time. High MP'ers are in the minority - though I expect them to be coming out of the workwork en masse shortly.