Michael Reichman does like to announce new era. He did so correctly in recognizing the Canon 3D as the change-maker in photography way back in 3 MP days. Here however, the Maxwell's article references the physical limits of the wavelength of light on lenses and asserts that we can take no more pixels because lenses cannot use them. Well, that may not be quite true. Just some ideas to stimulate discussion. Could these work
And rightly so, especially since the article focused (pun intended) on only one issue, Diffraction at the pixel level. Having more pixels will allow to output them individually at a smaller size, so the diffraction in output is not impacted by sensel size. Diffraction is only related to the relative aperture, the f-number. Smaller pixels do allow a more precise sampling of the diffraction pattern, which allows software to deconvolve it more accurately and restore sharpness.I think we will hit the wall eventually, but there's likely much more image quality that might be squeezed out by improving the optics and relying on mathematical solutions to complete focus, define DOF by focus stacking, extend the dynamic range, decrease noise as well as increase resolution.
These are not meant as statements but rather as questions to seed a debate.