I'd guess for many landscape shooters a big factor would be how Nikon's lenses(espeically the "holy trinity") hold up at 35 MP at the borders.
If Nikon themselves were designing the sensor I'd be pretty confident that they would but it looks like this maybe a Sony hand me down and I wouldnt be at all supprized to see them release a sensor which existing FF lenses cannot make the most of.
I shoot with a 1D Mark IV and it does everything I ask of it. More than enough pixels to stand up to heavy cropping when needed. We should pay more attention to the use of good glass and worry less about more pixels.
Just one man's opinion.
Looking at life through a 1D4 and a 5D3 plus lots of red rings.
I can't buy Nikon cos I don't know how it works And I don't care about AF, just need a MF screen on a FF camera above 16MP which makes the forest in the backgound green and not muddy... I sometimes can't see the red and violet noisy dots from the 5D2 where it should actually be just green - is this too much asking? But I think of trying Sony NEX with the new adapter for EF or in my case for ZE lenses ... Anyone had a go already?
5D3 (04/12), Carl Zeiss ZE 21, 35/1.4, 50MP, 100MP Canon 135/2, Sigma 85/1.4 SONY RX100
I'd gladly take a 22mp 5D Mark III. I honestly wouldn't care if it got pushed down to 18mp if it dramatically increased the ISO handling. Or better low-light AF. As it is, I don't even think I want them cramming 36 million tiny little pixels into the 5D's (relatively) small sensor. If I really have a need for 30+ megapixels, I think I'd be more comfortable using medium format.