File :-(, x, )
Poll: Megapixels vs. camera sensitivity Anonymous
LAS VEGAS--The camera companies keep telling me the megapixel race isn't over, but I'd like to see if you have a different opinion.

I'm one of those people who doesn't believe more megapixels necessarily makes for a better digital camera. Sure, at least theoretically having more megapixels permits larger prints and tighter cropping, but it also can impose penalties such as image noise, lousy low-light performance, smeary noise-reduction artifacts, and other drawbacks. There's a trade-off here.

So it's time to vote now for what you'd benefit from more in a camera: more megapixels or higher sensitivity. Click the button to register your opinion and explain yourself below in the TalkBack section if you want to make your case in more detail.

Camera makers seem unable to resist the temptation of higher megapixels in compact cameras right now, marching on past 10 megapixels to 12. But in the SLR domain, where buyers are more sophisticated and larger image sensors provide more leeway, there are some interesting trade-offs going on.

Most interesting to me right now is Canon's approach. Its entry-level EOS Rebel XSi is a 12-megapixel model, but one step up the ladder is the 10-megapixel 40D. The Rebel's XSi top sensitivity is ISO 1,600, but the 40D offers 3,200.

http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9858266-39.html?tag=newsmap
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Where is the vote for better glass? Also who cares what news.com thinks and post a more related image (or failing that a good one)
>> Anonymous
The xsi does 3200 with what canon calls "H", which is exactly how the 40D handles it.

Of course the only times im using 1600+ is indoor sports, with a flash. The only times im using 3200 in any situation is gymnastics, where flash is specifically disallowed.

So why does that matter? The xsi is a pos for sports. 3fps? 1/200 sync, iirc? No one is going to use it.