My point was simply that a 192 mpx/second bandwidth camera does not exist today in a Nikon camera. What they might be able to do I don't think we are privy to so at least from my point of view I assume "they can't or won't" until they do. It is a big incremental step up.
Even if they could do it in a D5 today, that does not mean they would do it in a sub-$2000 D300 replacement camera. And the fact that the replacement would likely not have an integrated grip means that there is less internal real estate to stuff the needed parts in. That could be a factor- we can;t divine that but can only accept the possibility.
I know there is a 12 fps/24mpx camera out there but it is not a Nikon camera and is a bit different. I know you believe the D4 has "only" 16 mpx because the sports market doesn't want it but I'm not convinced. There is no other market segment that has said "I don't want as many pixels as you can give me". We just have to disagree on that.
A lot of people here yawned over the D4's 16mpx. If it had been 20 or 24 there would be far more upgrading going on. As it is a lot of people will stick with their D3's since there is no huge increase in low noise performance and the resolution is not game changing. I'm just going by comments I saw here after the announcement. They may not even be strictly the intended market but they are probably the majority of the market, and if not the majority they (well heeled amateurs) are a major segment and critical support for the product.
>> I don't disagree that we cannot keep increasing resolution in large jumps, but I think it will continue, and I don't think it's a matter of "not thinking it through".
Actually I'm suggesting they *can* increase resolution in substantial jumps. But that does not mean bandwidth can necessarily keep up. The day may come when buyers have to trade quantity (fps) for quality (resolution). I don't think the market is quite ready to do that yet but some day it will simply have to (in my opinion).