Originally posted by Class A You have that backwards since most people would be impressed by pixel-sharpness at 100% views which is easier to achieve with lower pixel-pitch cameras like the K100D. BTW, regarding "old", I'd venture a guess that 80% of K-5 users could do 80% of their shots with a K100D and not notice any loss of quality for the output formats they are using. I'm still using a K100D and only very rarely I wish I had the quicker AF or the better dynamic range of the K-5.
Great wisdom, Class A! Or, at least it would seem to me to be as such, since I've only my trusty K100dS and nothing else relevant to compare to it. AF speed, low light ISO, and higher DR are the primary reasons for me to upgrade, and not more MP. 6 MP, believe it or not, IS enough. Image quality is always important. Analagously, a few years ago, when I was looking in detail at HDTV's, IQ was dependent on, predominantly, contrast levels, color saturation, color accuracy, and, fourth on the list, was resolution. I was happy to know that for HDTV's, they knew what was important, and in what order. I've not heard any such ordering for IQ from DSLR's. I agree with Rockwell - you just don't need that many MP's. The thing I fear about upgrading (and I will, soon) is that I'll spend a lot of money and then find that I'll have mostly just larger files, but not necessarily better ones, for about 80% of the time. My $0.02.