Any proficient photographer tends to aim for using the best tools for their work. That encompasses choosing the suitable format for capturing the initial image. Sometimes the "best" format is small, sometimes it is larger, but any sane decision has to be based on very different criteria than what can be gleaned for the noisy information available on the internet. Severe abuse of concepts and understanding physical laws are wide-spread to the extent that in some user groups they have replaced the facts.
The inevitable information loss (or introduction of noise, which is the same thing) associated with overall degree of magnification of detail along the work flow from raw file to print should receive much emphasis. It is a basic fact that a larger format needs less secondary magnification to get a fixed print size, but is that a relevant basic for comparison if the end user doesn't care about what format they print to? Can a higher initial pixel count negate the issue of magnification loss, or will we face the apparition few know or care about, the ghost of empty magnification? In fact, with most of the gear available today, we can make final prints much bigger than anything deemed feasible only a few decades ago, unless you had an awkward slow-operating view camera of 4x5" or larger. For viewing on a web page, even a measly 2 MPix model would suffice thus most of our captures are truly overkill in terms of the amount of data captured.
I'm definitively not saying techincal information is superfluous or we shouldn't wish for improvements in sensor technology or camera features, merely pointing out the danger of running in circles to bite one's tail if not allowing less technical aspects to play prominently in our photographic life.
