>People often overestimate importance of megapixels. The >difference between 24 and 10 megapixels is in reality smaller >than you think.
Oh, quite understood. I acknowledged as much in the 10 vs 12 Mp comments. We agree but the sentiment might have been better expressed, "smaller than one might think".
In this instance it would have been a Hail Mary with either camera. Needless to say I don't go looking for coyotes and don't much care to get closer when I (and my dog) do encounter them (nor do they particularly wish to pose for me). Living in the 'burbs as I do, I don't go out loaded for wildlife and choose not to go to the expense to do so. I leave that to others, such as the OP, who do harbor the ambition.
In fact, I had arrived expecting to photograph mown hay. Really! That's why the coyote was there - the mowing had set a feast for predators who are not too picky about eating their meals dead or alive.
Still, I would have much preferred to have substantially more pixels on the animal. Absolutely. This was an extreme situation picked for the purposes of this thread. In this case it would have been the difference between 315 and ~480 pixels, nose to tail (math using the difference in pixel width of the FX view and DX crop of the 24Mp D600 sensor). Now that I have a likely MO for the critter, comes next mowing I think I'll mount the 70-300 on the OM-D (or is it the other way around?) and see what the beast looks like 630 pixels long.
And there would assuredly be situations where the difference would indeed be critical. Given the choice between 1000 and 1528 pixels, I expect I know which one we'd both pick. Otherwise, I shed nary a tear. The image remains a useful record shot.
BTW, let's not forget the D3200 and D5200 also belong to the 24Mp club.