>>3982022>max size you can print
If you don't crop, and I know I don't, the max size for prints is more than enough for almost any reasonably large print.
I can't find the video I wanted to show, but at poster sized prints, 20mp is certainly more than enough.
And once you get into the realm of online photos or photos for publication, 20mp still remains more than enough.
Now... I can see cases where large megapixel counts matter. In those situations, 24mp sensors barely add much. You're looking at something like a 5DS, R5, Z7, A7RIV, fp L, or even just a straight up medium format camera, like a Hasselblad X1D or Fuji GFX. But outside of a select few use cases, there just isn't the same need for this amount of resolution.
Remember: 4K is only 8.3 megapixels. If we're still content with FHD or QHD as a quality level, then I'd argue that 20mp is perfectly sufficient.
As for astrophotography... I've gotten plenty of excellent star trails with the 17mm f/1.8. If I increase ISO, then I can reasonably get to ISO 1000, and not really perceive any distracting noise if I've remembered to expose right. I suppose if you wanted to capture galaxies and stuff, higher sensitivity gear is probably what you want. But I've been to observatories, and the astrophotography they have hanging up have all sorts of noise, banding and comatic aberration going on. Yet no one seems to give a crap - they're more fascinated by the fact that they can see captured for posterity a comet's tail or some meteorite shower.
I think, especially as "enthusiasts" we tend to focus so much on the tiny details and pixel peep.
But is that the core of what photography is?
I've shot a bunch of film, and some of it is grainy as hell, and hasn't rendered anything precisely... yet I don't really care, because the photo has captured something more... fundamental - a moment in time to remember.
If MFT is the system that lets me do this, then I think that's all that should matter.