I would also venture to say if you are a true landscape big print professional (I am not) then basing your captures on a single 135 format capture would be cavalier in the extreme. Even with a D800E.
That's debatable...but again, it revolves around the semantics of "big." Regardless, there is no doubt it will let you get "bigger."
There will always be a few people who push any metric of any camera design, I wasn't stating that nobody needed more MP, I was pointing out that the numbers we have can be used to very great effect and I don't believe many people need more the vast majority of the time, me included. I was also pointing out that if you don't need it regularly, the downside of dealing with it all the time becomes a big negative.
This is true. But I was responding to your comment of "if you can't print big from a Canon you don't know what you're doing." And as far as the "downside" the answer is simple: don't buy a big megapixel camera if you don't need big megapixels.
I believe part of Canon's marketing leadership is based on them knowing what they are doing, to do that they know a trick I was taught many years ago by my mentor, don't give people what they say they want, understand what they want and give them that. Most of the time, as the marketshare demonstrates, Canon do deliver what people actually want.
But up until the D800 came out, Canon was the
choice for high resolution photography. If you were a landscape or architecture shooter like myself, it was a no brainer. It was not just because of the 5DII. It was lenses like the 17mm TS-E and 24mm TS-E that are geared toward that type of shooting. The 5DIII did not follow in that tradition of providing a resolution increase. I'm not saying it didn't make a lot of people happy. But as evidenced by the people who bought those tilt shift lenses, there is a market for high resolution photography.
Mixed in with those spurious distractions, sure a bit more DR will be nice, though none of the bleaters ever shows an optimally exposed real world image where the one stop lower Canon DR has ruined their image.
I have dozens of examples where the fixed pattern noise on Canon's sensors becomes a problem. I run into it probably at least once on every photoshoot I do. I can glady provide an illustration.
I just think we should be careful what we ask for, if we shout too much then they might just give it to us. I just don't want to be bothered with 40+mb RAW files, every, single, shot.
Then don't buy such a camera. I am pretty confident there will still be other options geared towards people who require faster frame rates (and consequently smaller files).
As to my crop, it was 1680px wide, but if I had posted it at that it would have displayed nearly 17" wide, that is not what I wanted to do, I wanted the detail to be life sized in relation to a 47" print, to do that I downsampled my 1680 wide print file crop to 700px wide to display at the correct size in the forum. I don't understand why that is such a difficult or complicated idea for you, a big printer, to get their head around, it is obviously a failing on my part to be clear.
I think showing a 700px image and saying this is a 7 inch crop can mislead people on what an actual print of that size would look like. A 700px wide image printed 7 inches wide is not going to look very good. I understand now your rationale, and I'm not saying you were trying to be sneaky or duplicitious...but I don't think it is reflective of the difference between screen and print.