But as I always say, don't believe internet blurb...do your own tests and draw your own conclusions!
This is the one true statement when you talk about buying any camera . . . for any purpose.
Test it, but test it in exactly the style your going to work, not in some dealer's shop, or for that matter not with a dealer within 2 miles of the shoot.
Personally, I'd test it in the way I work with my staff in the specific genre I wish to work, I would do it under the pressure of time, budget and talent time and I would do it where I could exactly compare it to what I was using at the moment to be sure it was worth the money to add another camera.
These images were shot with multiple cameras from a 4k RED, to a 30mp digital back, with the final image a 6mp Kodak DCS 760.
Some of the images (the RED) I purposely added noise and blew the edges in post to give a historic look, the middle image I purposely wanted a smooth detailed image and the third with the dcs 760, I worked in post to blow the highlights and some other effects to give the desired look.
All the cameras were used because at the time they worked for what I wanted to do and they worked in "my" real world.
I don't know, or care if they have 12 bits or 14 bits, a high or low noise floor . . .I just care what I end up with and if the final looked worked for the purpose.
It's interesting because I know little of the fine art world, but this week, we had an image sell in auction in Paris.
It was the second highest price image sold and the print was approx 45" in length and shot with a 5d2.
I do know I could not have shot this hallway image with my medium format backs because I used a 575 watt HMI and I doubt seriously if my medium format backs would gone to a high enough iso, to catch this image as I did.
This shouldn't mean anything to anyone else any more than it means for the pixel crowd who is in constant search for ultimate image quality (whatever that is).
But once again, that means nothing to anyone except me and the person that bought this print.