If you are taking landscapes and are then relying on 60% more pixels to allow for cropping you are not doing your equipment justice and you are not seeing the shot in front of you. Sure there are always isolated instances where a preconceived image framing or aspect ratio doesn't fit with the format ratio you happen to have, but even so there are few instances where stitching can't work in landscapes to mitigate that kind of thing.
As for post processing, that has got nothing to do with it, digital capture, like negatives, requires processing, just take a look at any of your
RAW files with dcraw to confirm that! Our eyes see things in a completely different way to the way digital sensors record scenes and people have always made adjustments to the way the chemistry or electronics record the scene to better present the photographers vision. Would I show you an unprocessed canister of film and ask for your opinion of my images?
I stand by my comment, if you are relying on 60% more pixels to correct your crop in post you are doing something wrong.
Few professionals regularly crop photos 35% because they didn't compose properly in the first place, but yes they do crop. I've seen sports shooters crop landscape orientation to portrait orientation and still get the cover of SI with 18mp cameras, and the last thing they were talking about was wishing they had more mp.
My reply to your comment stands, if you are getting home and realizing the landscape image in front of you actually needs cropping 40% you are doing something wrong. That's the equivalent of shooting with a medium format digital to get 135 format images, or paying for and carrying ff gear to get crop camera IQ. Why is that considered so condescending? It is factually correct.