If Nikon or any camera maker wants to add mps without degrading dynamic range, or adding to noise, why should anyone object to it. If you don't need it fine, but why do you care.
Here's my take on this. Lets say in this imaginary world, noise, color, and DR is exactly the same no matter the MP. Wouldn't it be amazing if you could take a picture with a 18mm of the golden gate bridge, from like a mile away, and later crop so far in that you could make a 8x10 of somebody's face in one of the cars? If we had a million MP at our disposal, imagine the possibilities.
Now we all know that cropping that far in will start to show flaws in the shot, but with enough light and a fast enough shutter, we can push far past the limit of even 24MP. The only real limit is noise, because if we crop in far enough with a million MP sensor, we will end up with too noisy a crop. If we can improve overall noise performance, and keep DR and color good, more MP is always better.
IF . The only other issue people could have is file sizes. I think there are definite limitations for either side, which is why they keep offering both to consumers.
I notice that the 7D is supposed to have an 18mp sensor, yet its fps is 8. The D7k for example only has 16mp, yet its fps is lower (6 if i remember correctly). This means that contrary to what I've read here, file size isn't the only factor in fps rates. The 7D has twin processors, no doubt lending to its speed. I'm starting to understand the tradeoff of more MP. Noise seems to become worse the more MP you have contrary to some opinions. The 7D is proof they can increase fps without sacrificing MP, so there must be another reason that a camera such as the D4 exists. Nikon made both the D4 and D800 at the same time, and they are worlds apart in resolution. The only explanation for this is noise. As the 7D shows, fps can't be why the D4 has less MP. They could have just added more processing power to the D800 and jacked it up to 11fps as well.
