While the pictures of the Nikon D800 may be genuine or not, it does seem to be the case that both Nikon and Sony will be releasing 36MP full frame cameras in the near future.
As per usual any mention of increased pixel count results in a rash of posts immediately criticising it. Usually from people getting "pixel envy" or attempting to show how their camera is the "best". There's been the usual number of "You don't need.... etc" posts, and personally I wish that the people who post stuff like this would say what they mean i.e. "I haven't got a camera with this many pixels so I'm going to rubbish one that has."
I read this quote - "I think the average consumer is starting to realize that megapixels
isn't all that important anymore, and the term itself at least in the US
is becoming increasingly less popular in conversations I have with
everyone. In other words, most people don't give a crap about megapixels
as much as they used too." So from a few conversations and a personal opinion a "fact" emerges. (Or not, as is of course the case)
So, nobody's going to buy the Sony A77 or NEX-7 then?
This will of course go on and on. In 5 years time expect comments like "Nobody needs 300MP, 200 is enough for anybody" I still remember the "6MP is enough" statements of a few years ago. I just wonder how many of those who wrote things like that still have and use and are perfectly satisfied and contented with their 6MP cameras.
It is patently obvious to anyone who has eyes (and a brain) that resolution is improving all the time. While of course its undoubtedly true that more MP's doesn't equal better pictures, as yet nobody has come up with a test that checks how good a photographer you are before letting you buy a high specification camera. As far as I'm concerned, if people want to buy really expensive cameras and take rotten pictures, then thats great. The more people that buy them, the cheaper they become. If only talented photographers and "pros" bought D3X's, Leicas and Canon 1ds's, then I dread to think how much more expensive they would be, and they are pretty pricey as it is. Probably in the MF range, which is an almost exclusively, high end professional market, with exclusive high-end prices to match.
I've never used a 36MP camera, but via stitching I have created 36MP equivalent files. These large files don't have any higher image quality than lower MP count files (unless you downsize them, when they can become very impressive) but many things are possible.
This image below was created using multi images taken with a Nikon D7000, and stitched together using photomerge in Photoshop. Its very slightly bigger than 36MP, and is 109MB in size.
Because its so large and has such high resolution its perfectly possible to crop it vertically to produce a 48MB file, suitable for an A4 page or magazine cover.
You could also take a 12MP, m4/3 size chunk out of it which would be capable of large scale reproduction.
So lots of alternatives from one image.
High resolution cameras will be bought by people who want high resolution cameras. Whether they "need" them or not is immaterial and certainly nothing to do with anybody else. I would be interested to know whether these people who are so free with their "advice" as to what people need, feel compelled to approach people in restaurants eating big meals and tell them that they dont "need" that much food. Thinking about it, that might be a better use of their arrogance, rather than criticising peoples camera choices.