I've been quiet about the upcoming DSLR offerings from Nikon, but it seems clear to me that Nikon and Canon came to a similar conclusion: Amateurs need more pixels, pros probably don't.
Sometime in early 2012 we're going to have the full FX body updates from both Canon and Nikon. In the case of the 5DII and D700 follow ups, there will be substantive pixel increases (the rumors put both in the 30's). In the case of the 1D and D3 follow ups: 16 to 18mp is enough. Canon has already said as much with their 1DX launch, and most of the D4 predictions (including mine for the past two years) say 18mp for it, as well (though Nikon Rumors now says 16.2mp).
Sony already seems to be there, with 24mp APS cameras already pushing pixel counts high for enthusiasts, with a 36mp FX sensor (and likely cameras) coming.
What gives? Why are we getting more amateur-oriented equipment that pushes the pixel counts up and up, but pro gear is being more modest?
Because enthusiasts are asking for it, mostly. I suspect that it is a combination of factors that come into play:
- Crop happy. Amateurs tend not to get the image right at acquisition. They'll take the image and hope they can crop it to something satisfactory.
- Overly ambitious. Enthusiasts think that if they take a great picture every once in awhile and can blow it up to a 36" print they can wave in their friends' faces, that their friends will now think they "professional."
- Driven by marketing. 24 is better than 16, 36 is better than 18. More is always better in the marketing world, which apparently doesn't play much golf.
- Obsession with testing. While I advocate everyone, even pros, test their equipment to know what it can and can't do, the enthusiast crowd has spawned sites and communities where testing is pretty much the sole pursuit. They get caught up in the details and miss the big picture.
- Technology always moves on. This is related to some of the previous points, but there's an underlying sense that products that don't increase key metrics are somehow behind the technology curve. I thought the D3/D700 disproved that with their 12mp sensor magic, but the thought lives on in a lot of users.
Yes, my tongue is a bit in cheek here. As I often do, I'm exaggerating details a bit to make a point: Nikon and Canon clearly think of dedicated pros and serious enthusiasts differently. They've been prioritizing design decisions accordingly, and that includes sensor choices.
Personally, I use my 24mp D3x much less than I thought I would, and my 12mp D3s more than I thought I would. Both are fine cameras, but "more resolution" turns out to be less important to me than other factors at the pixel level, and to some degree, most pros seem to voice the same thoughts (though we always say "I wish I could have more resolution with the same underlying pixel tendencies.").
Just remember that with more pixels come more downstream issues: you'll need faster computers with more memory and a lot more storage to keep your digital darkroom performance at acceptable levels. Fortunately, that technology keeps moving forward, too.
Still, my living room wall didn't get bigger to accept bigger photos, and my HD TV is still just 1080P, so I'm not sure where I'm going to display all those new pixels we've got coming. Maybe the enthusiasts who keep pushing for them can tell me* ;~).
*Okay, more tongue in cheek here. More pixels isn't necessarily a bad thing, despite a lot of underlying issues that start to creep up: capture discipline, diffraction, overall light sensing area (due to more data/power lines), etc. Think of it as a higher "sampling rate" for the data, which tends to be a good thing in digital.