'More' doesn't always equal 'better' !

'Amateur Photographer' magazine published an enlightening article today, where they compared images from 2 pairs of Canon compact 'twins', The A540 & 550, and the A630 & 640.
In both pairs, the mag found the camera with the lower pixel count (the 540 & 630) turned in sharper, more detailed pictures than their more expensive twin.

From their overall summary of all four cameras:
"If image quality and value for money were the sole deciding factors the lowest resolution model on test- the A540 - would come out on top. If money were no object then the A630 would steal the crown."

And the telling closing line of the article:-
" ...an increase in resolution in and of itself cannot, and does not, add up to 'better' pictures"

Yes, and I believe every word of it too! I bought a Canon SD600 (6 MP) for it's compact size and speed to replace my older Olympus 3 MP as my pocket camera. I ran many test, and while my old Olympus is slow starting, and slow processing, it will turn out an all around better picture every time with it's 3 MP, than the SD600 and it's 6 MP. I sold the 600. I will find another small camera for my pocket, but it has to be better then the 600 was.

Many people mentioned the same when comparing the A610 and A620 as well. My 5MP S2 seems to perform just fine for everything that I need it to do.

If you check the forums, it has a correlation with sensor size and megapixels. The pixel density is what matters most.

Absolutely!

Manufacturers know how to market their products though, so mexapixels are what they feed the bulk of the consumers. I've had this discussion many, many times with people who were looking for cameras and were just too locked into the numbers. I'd trade megabytes for better glass, a better processor or useful features - or a better price any day.

Many sport shooters still shoot with 1D MkI's - those are 4MP, but take great photos.