we don't want more pixels on small sensors
"indeed some might suggest that it’s just a smidgeon light on features, such as ... and more pixels on the CCD"
see here:
http://6mpixel.org/en/
Not long ago we looked at the Digital Ixus 70 IS and now comes the follow up, the Digital Ixus 80 IS. So is it a case of the same chocolates in a different box or has Canon radically redefined this camera sector? First impressions are that the Digital 80 IS has that cool “Ixus look” – our model was sleek, silver, stylish and …
I sort of agree with you.
More pixels in such a tiny area is pointless. I think we hit the highest resolution for a 'digital camera' a year or two ago.
I want my digital cameras to have BIGGER sensors. Yup, I want a 35mm sensor with the correct number of pixels in it (personally, I do not know how many that would be). ideally, a nice Mamiya with 35mm digital back along with a medium format digital back... oh wait.. dont' they have those already...?
Anyway, bring on the not-making-lense-ratios-more-complex digital cameras :o)
Interesting article above, on '6mp is the optimum for compact cameras'.
I spent some time around the middle of last year looking at CC's and ended up getting the Ixus 70. From this review, and a quick comparison on Canon's site against this model, I really can't see any compelling reasons to spend the extra $A100 for the 80 over the 70.
As to full frame (35mm) sensors - there's pros and cons with this. I used to think the same way, but Four-thirds (wikipedia it) looks like a much better option to me now. I'm not invested with either Canon or Nikon high-end gear, so a new standard is a more attractive option than siding with either of those two company's lock-in approach anyway.
Fascinating article about four-thirds ("Full Frame Wars") over at : http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html - he writes especially coherently, doing an excellent history of 35mm and then some analysis of full frame sensors as well as looking at four-thirds.