I think Michael got a little overburned by the M8 controversy -- he protests too much. IMHO, it's unnecessary. Sane people don't expect perfection, but informed judgment is always welcome.
He obviously thinks the 1DsIII is an exceptional camera -- "...the Hassy stayed in its bag." It's also obvious that landscape photographers of a certain stripe can never be satisfied -- there will never be enough resolution, or enough DR. That's fine, and I understand that, too. But what I would *really* like to know is, if you were assigned to shoot top-quality double-truck spread of movie stars, standing in a group, where every face is important, with lights, in a studio, with all necessary assistants and equipment, for Vanity Fair...would it make any difference in the final published photograph whether you used a 1DsIII or a P45? I understand it would make a difference if you were printing a 60x90, but how about a top-quality magazine spread, but limited to magazine double-page size?
If the answer to that question is "No, it wouldn't make any real-world difference," then I think MF may be in deeper trouble yet.
Thom Hogan, by the way, on his website, is hinting that the next Nikon is going to be something weird. I don't know exactly what he is suggesting, except that he seems to expect something more than lots of pixels, but maybe a year or more out yet...
JC