Mike Collins wrote:

Soon it will be that for me too.  Getting my Fuji X-T1 next week.  More pixels has never been the answer.  Yes, it has it's place but it's a rare occasion for the common photographer or even pro that ever needs more than 24.  Hell, I was fine at 12.

Anything that is printed huge is going to be observed from a distance anyways.  And we all have large prints that look fantastic that were shot with 16mp and less.  I've seen 30x40inch prints from 12 mp cameras that I swear were shot medium format film. 

But I'm sure the pixel peepers will rejoice.

There are definite advantages to high MP..
12MP does give great 30x40 prints but 30MP+ gives better prints...
.....retouching is one..
.....being able to crop into a shot WAY more than you were planning to is another....

LaurensAntoine 4 FHM wrote:
It looks like Canon, as they actually stated when the 1Dx came out that there would be no high resolution replacement for the 1Ds3. It appears now that have slated the 5D series as the new studio camera for professionals. I would still expect a 5D4 with better ISO performance, and perhaps better dynamic range as well.

Truthfully, that is exactly what Nikon did with the D4/D4s and the D800/D810.  They eliminated the need for the D4X.

Frankly, it makes sense and I think they both did the right thing.  The D3X and 1DS III were prohibitively expensive cameras for most professional shooters, except those at the high end.  It is arguable that there is little that they could offer in a 1DS III replacement, for thousands more than they are putting into the 5DS.  I agree, it is a good move and makes professional cameras more affordable.

Let's face it.  Pros were already using D810's and 5D III's.  It is logical to build the 5DS for them as well.

Legacys 7 wrote:

You missed the rules here on M.M. No critique of the person's work unless it's asked by them. In a subtle way, you did that.

I made absolutely no comment about the quality of anyone's work. Nor did I make any comment about the value of any work. I only pointed out that different types of photography require different levels of technology in various categories. For example, the Canon 1Dx has a lower pixel count, but better processors. That doesn't make it better or worse, but more or less appropriate for certain types of photography. Studio photography benefits from higher pixels more than reportage for example, yet sports photography benefits from higher frame rate. Therefore, if you shoot a lot of action/sports, but little to no portraits, then you would be better off with a camera that puts the tech dollar toward frame rate. That's why the 1D/1Ds split happened. That's just one example.

What I said, was the style of images in his port didn't require high frame rate, or pixels. It also didn't take advantage of DOF to make them interesting. What makes the photos good, (...and now I AM critiquing, but only because you put me on the spot.) was the subject, and lighting. Therefore; the photos could be made, and approximately equal quality, with a less expensive camera.

So, but making unwarranted assumptions, you've tried to put words in my mouth, and subjected yourself to my reply in my own defense.

The only mystery I can see, is why you would make that assumption at all.