"Basically, there are two reasons why I believe megapixel count should not be discounted: (1) Megapixels future-proof your images, and (2) Megapixels allow photographers to crop significantly."
Yeah, what he (Jim Harmer) said:
Quit Dissing My Megapixels – I love all 36 million of them!
Pretty shallow article--there are other factors which limit the resolution. More pixels beyond a certain point don't buy you anything depending on these other factors. And a camera body is more than just a bunch of pixels. Choosing a body is also choosing an entire system including lens lines and accessories.
OK, he likes the Nikon D800. But if he were serious about resolution, he would get the D800e... (No antialiasing filter.) And if he
really wanted MP, he would be looking at things like the Phase One 80MP medium format backs.
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/IQ2-Series.aspx
Both the Canon 5D3 (22.3MP) and the Nikon D800/D800e came out at about the same time and are aimed at similar markets. The general consensus seems to be:
* The Canon 5D3 has better color reproduction, better low light performance, and better ergonomics.
* The Nikon D800 has more MP and better dynamic range at low ISO (but not at high ISO).
To get the best out of either body, one has to use the finest lenses and a very sturdy tripod.
FWIW, the D800 vs 5D3 issue has been debated to death on camera websites with rabid fans on both sides. One bottom line is that there are plenty of pros and amateurs producing high quality images with either system.
Future proofing by having more MP? I consider storing the image in a format and on media that will be readable in 10+ years to be far more important for future proofing. More MP may (or may not) allow tighter cropping but that has nothing to do with time.
Doug