To print a full size photo on a Canon PRO-4000 (44"x66") at 300ppi, you would need a 261 megapixel image. Now, granted that's not realistic, but 300ppi is generally the gold stand for printing resolution.what on earth can you NOT do with 45mb that hinders you, im curious!
Let's add to IBIS & dynamic range, better eyeAF with the option to cycle through faces, oh and one last thing, we gotta have 2 card slots.Besides IBIS what I really want to see is increased dynamic range. They have some patents that would be able to get 14+ stops of range, with a sensor design that'd also be able to avoid rolling shutter. I'd like something like that more than almost anything else.
To print a full size photo on a Canon PRO-4000 (44"x66") at 300ppi, you would need a 261 megapixel image. Now, granted that's not realistic, but 300ppi is generally the gold stand for printing resolution.
A 45mp sensor only gives you an anemic 51ppi when printing that large. So yes, when printing large there is a legitimate reason for having those high resolutions.
Now granted, before people jump all over me with the "but the images still look fine when viewing from a normal distance" argument, yes, I admit that they do look ok. I have printed an uncropped image from my 5DIV at 44"x66", and it does look ok at a normal distance. But really, it's a little lackluster. If you were printing a photo of a city skyline or something with a lot of detail, it would be really neat to be able to get up close and see the small details, but you can't when the initial photo was only 30mp, or even 45mp.
I sure am glad I don't need that FPS speed, but 40mp would be nice to have.
Now for the question: When adapting old film lenses is there a point where the high mpix becomes a problem? I guess I am asking whether or not a camera can be too much horsepower for a lens; exaggerating aberrations, etc?