Having a debate w/ another G35driver member, and that's his quote. I argue that and increased # of pixels does not equate a higher quality image. I say that if you try to stuff more pixels onto a specific sensor, it will actually increase heat and in turn increase noise.

thoughts?

 

this coin has two distinct sides for sure. i used to be on the more MP means more noise side of it for a while. i am no longer tho. i shoot a 5D classic which is 12.8mp. the guy i bought it from upgraded to the mkII version which is 23mp or whatever crazy # it is. so if the more MP=more noise theory is correct it should have almost twice as much noise as my camera at the same higher ISO settings. but it does not. in fact, it has alot less. this, i think, is because of a superior image processor vs my 4 or 5 years older camera body. conversely, canon has decided to reduce the MP of the G11 vs the older G10 because they say it handled higher ISO better this way. perhaps this more mp= more noise "rule" is only true for point and shoot cameras where they are stuffing 12+ mp onto sensors a fraction of the size of DSLRs.

to sum all that up: the more the merrier in DSLRs. i am planning to get my hands on a 7D asap and sell my 5D for other reasons but from what i have seen so far, even on a crop sensor it handles higher ISOs a lot better than my camera which is why i want it

 

The more pixels you have the broader color range you can represent as well as greater detail. Just like if you were doing a pen and ink drawing and were using huge dots to create your image as opposed to using smaller dots. The image with the larger dots doesn't give the quality needed.
If you tried to get more MP out of an old processor, then yes you would get more noise. The only reason that the MPs have increased is that the quality of the processors has greatly improved.

 

But aren't you referring to pixel density and not image resolution?

 

For normal 4x6" (10x15cm) prints, even VGA (640 x 480 or 0.3MP) resolution is just fine. Digital cameras did this back in 1991!

In 1999 when digital cameras were only 1.2 or 2 MP, each megapixel mattered if you were making bigger prints.

Today, even the cheapest cameras have at least 5 or 6 MP, which enough for any size print. How? Simple: when you print three-feet (1m) wide, you stand further back. Print a billboard, and you stand 100 feet back. 6MP is plenty.

Sharpness depends more on your photographic skill than the number of megapixels, because most people's sloppy technique or subject motion blurs the image more than the width of a microscopic pixel.

Even when megapixels mattered, there was little visible difference between cameras with seemingly different ratings. For instance, a 3 MP camera pretty much looks the same as a 6 MP camera, even when blown up to 12 x 18" (30x50cm)! I know because I've done this. Have you? NY Times tech writer David Pogue did this here and here and saw the same thing — nothing!

Source

 

Nope. They are the same thing. More pixels, more density.

To the above statement, a "megapixel" is not a thing. It simply means one million pixels, which is a thing (short for picture element). 10 MP means 10,000,000 pixels. When you use a 6 MP camera and a 12 MP camera to take the same picture, you do get a better picture with the higher res because you have more pixels to generate the same image.

http://www.extension.org/faq/30081

 

Generally speaking, you are correct. But from what I have been seeing, the 7D proves to contradict this as it has 50% more MP than the 5D but handles noise the same.

Also, bokeh is not a feature of the number of MP. And to my knowledge, neither is DR.