I read a pretty good article about choosing sensors for scientific imaging and thought some here might be interested based on discussions in days of yore. They have some good rules of thumb that might be useful for photographers even though it's written for microscopists. It's a good idea to push the boundaries on equipment when you can afford to play around so that you know what will limit you before you create a more important image.
Here's the link. I don't know why the bubble shows up saying requested content can't load. It does load the article.A guide to choosing and using scientific imaging cameras
If you understand what it's saying about how our eyes aren't quantitative (they aren't linear is a better way to say it, IMHO) you'll probably be more merciful to people who shoot jpeg—since a similar kind of compression happens when we see due to the non-linear response of our eye to light, you can make an argument that the most useful data is kept in a well-captured jpeg. This assumes you nail your exposure and white balance and that your in-camera noise processing is better than anything that will ever be invented, so I'm still a staunch advocate for RAW! In fact, the authors argue for non-destructive editing of raw data in the paper.
Their "Think in photons" section is important for those waiting on huge gains in low light performance with new sensors and even revolutionary changes like ditching the bayer pattern to avoid filtering so many photons won't change things too much. An article someone posted on the forum a few years ago gave numbers that showed we really are nearing the physical limits of sensors in terms of dynamic range—there just aren't big enough differences in the number of photons to get a good statistical read on the light level at each pixel. Maybe we could cool our sensors to get rid of some dark current? Even then, the statistical noise from photon counting (shot noise) is going to limit you sometime in low light. I think we're nearly there or maybe there already. In any case, I don't feel like I'll ever need more dynamic range than the D7000 and NEX-6 give me. I'm not saying there will never be reasons to buy new cameras (I've never had problems finding those!), only that before we get caught up in spec envy we should think about what a camera upgrade will actually do for our photography.
CC is welcome. DC is also welcome when I deserve it.