[neostyles]

I think 12 to 16 megapixels is plenty of resolution if you frame the right shot the right way. High pixel counts allow you to zoom by cropping but that always feels like trying to wiggle a good shot out of something that could have been done better. I understand there are times when you just have to take the shot and hope for the best afterwards but I see that as a very low percentage use case. If you find yourself zooming by cropping then I think you need a longer focal length vs. higher pixel count bodies.

Otherwise, I think the previous replies answer your question from a surface area / light gathering / sensitivity / etc perspective.

There is some truth to this, And I didnt like it how much my teacher always told us to crop. I was like "wait its already good." I really am one of those people that likes to get it right right out of the camera and require as little editing as possible. But sometimes it can be a very valuable tool. Take this picture of the moon that i took one night.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10513443_10204...05261390_n.jpg

Even at the highest focal length, there was still quite a bit of black around the moon. The high megapixel count allowed me to crop in and retain much of the detail, something im not sure i could have done with 16 megapixels. I was considering getting a canon and i think i might have even seen a difference with the 20 mp of the 5dm3. I dont know, for me the megapixels has always kind of fascinated me,. I like being able to zoom in and see all these details.I remember the first time i took picture with my camera, i zoomed in and noticed a person in one of the cars that i didnt even see before. My jaw literally dropped.

The hasselblad cameras do look intriuging but unless there is a fairly significant drop in price, im afraid they;re a bit out of my price range. I suspect my next camera will be a nikon d810. Detail has always just fascinated me as a photographer. The ability of the camera to discern more than is visible to the human eye I guess.

[RyanW]

In my opinion heavy use of cropping should be the domain of wildlife shooters. Many times their putting their critters smack dab in the center of the frame. Long glass costing what it does, high resolution sensors are an attractive way to squeeze more out of the glass they can afford.

Heavy cropping doesn't work when you have a composition that isn't mostly centered. When you crop, you change what the photo is trying to say.

Personally, I try to get it right in camera and only crop to get rid of something on the edge of the frame that I missed when I took the photo. I have very little interest in wildlife shooting and don't believe you need a bunch of megapixels to print large, so for me big resolution really just eats more space and takes more time to shunt around, back up and so on.