Originally posted by traderdrew I get the impression you go around picking posts apart as I have read posts from you before. Why do I have to make this simple again? If there is going to be a thirty something MP APS-C sensor from Sony in two years then why would someone need 40 MPs? I think you would agree the lens is more important than the camera.
Because it is not about mega-pixels. I think you are missing the point. Megapixels is just one small part of the equation. For certain work a 36MP FF can compete with MF, but people who shoot MF typically do so because they print large. For people who don't print large there is no reason to use MF. For people who shoot for a living, especially commercial work, then MF pays for itself. If it didn't you would not have seen a waiting list for the 645D. There have already been prototype MF CMOS sensors shown. It is only a matter of time before that technology makes its way into production MF bodies and we see MF get cheaper and much more flexible. Because of the size and weight of the bodies I think MF has the most to gain from mirror-less design. We have already seen a Samsung prototype and Hassy has one rumored to be under development. Companies are not putting millions into a market segment they think is going to be obsolete. Both the Leica S3 (2 new lenses) and Pentax 645D should be updated in the very near future.
I will agree that the lens is more important than the camera in many ways. You have to have very, very good glass on an APS-C if you want to compete with FF and large prints. Why do you think Olympus SHG glass is bigger, heavier, & more expensive than the FF Canon or Nikon equivalent? If crop sensors are going to compete with FF or MF then they need really, really good glass.