@privatebydesign, I can't quote you 'cos I'm on my iPhone, but you mention a serious landscape photographer not using one FF frame even if it is 36mp.
This is quite right, high mp on a smaller format will never equal a larger format in landscape photography because your subject or detail in the picture will only cover a very small areas of the sensor, ie the light image projected onto the sensor will be tiny, because the detail is not close to the camera, whereas on a larger format the actual capture is larger. So MF or LF is always going to beat a smaller format in these circumstances. ( This is why when people test FF against APS and fill the frame with a subject close to the camera they see no difference - because in this scenario there is essentially no difference).
Digital has allowed us to easily stitch frames together to mimic a larger sensor, the advantages you gain are the same because each section has a larger image on the sensor. So a 13 mp 5D for instance, stitched from four vertical sequences, will produce a higher 'IQ' than a single frame 36mp FF, because the 5D has been turned into a larger format, - about 36x 90 in this instance, about the same size as the old 645 film medium format.
For applications where the subject detail is larger in the frame, 18 or 22 mp is going to be enough to make enormous prints, so the 36 or 50 mp FF is a little in no man's land. Just like the D800, a gimmick. And you want the E? just add unsharp mask to the regular one.
I think Canon know this. Canon are quite good at avoiding the fluff on their higher end cameras.
"Does Sir require a little pop up flash to fill in his 36 mp ? May I direct Sir to Nikon"
40 mp belongs on a larger format.