You have hit upon the most important point of all. What does the picture look like a normal viewing and normal mag. How may people will look at at the Monia Lisa with binoculars. Or a scanning electron microscope. One these LCD screens we gace on, can we really see 36MP.The depth of color, tones and accurancy ( as in chrome, like Kodachrome) is more of a factor then just line per MM or MPs or grain values. The two picture look the same because we are not test instrumnets, we are humans, whos eyes can only really see so much detail anyway. Some of these over processed image look like cartoons. Or what it may look like to some on "Window Pain". Why I like Fuji so much is that they made the frist CCD units, a long with Kodak. They are "flim people". Say what you may about the X-Pro, only 16MP, AP-C . In the old days smaller format cameras where sharp, but the larger the negative the smoother the image was . More zones in B&W, more tones of color. The bottom line is that it image look true to life. The final image goes beyond it's format or MPs. This issue will be seen by more photographers, film is a long way from being dead! And the really great digital cameras will produce images that look like film, like Fuji. Leica to date, looks better as a film camera...like my M7. The monachrome Leica, a great idea, poorly exicuted.