Is there a hole in MP range of FF cameras?

[scyrene]

Well fine I guess the way we share photos is just very different, I didn't even consider that. I still think you're being optimistic as to how high most people's standards are regarding what is acceptable cropping. Remember, you said "for a lot of people" - this I disagree on. I think most people's standards are lower than those of many of us here in these forums - clearly we are the kind of people who pay more attention to technical minutiae. Most people just take pics and view or share them and that's it.

(PS - doesn't viewing from a greater distance diminish the effect of more detail? A computer display is viewed fairly close, but tvs and projected images tend to be much further away. Just a thought).

Sure, you will have people at every extreme from super high res pixel peepers to people who are happy to view pixelated, stretched out images. My question to you is, how long before tablets are 4K? 5 years? Less? 2k images are fine when a standard viewing device is 2k. When standards change, so will a lot of photographers. I'd also like to think that people who have several thousand $ invested in camera gear and a lot of time invested in photography, care how their images are viewed/consumed/shared.

Things are changing, absolutely. It's gradual, and everybody's thresholds are different. But with higher resolution displays, higher resolution images will be more important, I agree. Although I guess we'll start hitting the wall of what people can perceive. I've never seen a 4K tablet, but at 10" size, say, is it noticeably different from HD? At what point do the pixels become too small to see the difference at average viewing distances?

 

[scyrene]

I'd also like to think that people who have several thousand $ invested in camera gear and a lot of time invested in photography, care how their images are viewed/consumed/shared.

And those people have zero influence on how their images are viewed. Wedding photos viewed on 7" tablets or 50" TV screens, neither of which are colour calibrated - the former show little detail the latter are viewed from far enough away it may as well be a 13" laptop screen. Add to that the tiny images on social networking sites.
All viewed by people who don't give a crap about how much detail they can see in a landscape or a bride's wedding dress. The photo either grabs them emotionally or it doesn't - the former they linger, the latter they move on with a simple click.

I hate to be cynical about this but it is an unfortunate truth that I see in both photography and hifi. A good picture, like good music overrides the medium and those who obsess about the 'best possible tool' do so for personal ego more than for the viewer's benefit. And anyone who argues otherwise only needs answer the question 'if perfect image quality is the most important thing why aren't you shooting medium format'.
What higher resolution images give the photographer is greater flexibility in how they process it.

You talk a lot of sense.

 

[Maiaibing]

No.
Light is best thought of in terms of stops.
Resolution is the same. If you need more than 24, you need 50. Or 100.

Mostly agree, however sometimes half a stop also counts. 24 to 36 MPIX does make a visible difference.

I think the path to 100 MPIX - yes Canon thank you for leading the way - will go over 70 pr 75 MPIX.