I never really bought into the theories of more pixels = more sensitivity to camera shake. That is:
  • If all things are kept equal (viewing size and IQ acceptability criteria), then there should be no real difference (HDNitehawks's point I believe). The geometry says the two situations are the same. If you had a column of light hitting the center of a pixel and the shake was small enough that the column of light stayed on the larger low density pixel boundaries, but the same shake splashed over onto the adjacent pixels on the smaller high density pixel; then maybe you can show a difference. But in the real world, the whole pixel is covered with light and any movement will cause light to move between pixels no mater the size.
  • Even if you make a bigger picture with the higher density sensor (which is one of its main purposes), then it still does not matter because the picture being much bigger is more likely to be viewed from a greater distance in real world view. Agreed, there are times and reasons for getting right on top of it for inspection, but in that case the shake may matter... however, the cases for that type of viewing is probably not the norm.
  • The real problem comes from pixel peeping on computers or heavy cropping.


Now for the caveat to the above - One of the reasons I would want the higher density pixels is to get a sharper looking image at a reasonable sized picture. This would mean raising the bar for IQ criteria. The above was if you consider all things to be equal... including IQ criteria. If you want to have a supper sharp image, or you want to maintain a certain quality level while cropping out a portion of the picture in order to get magnification, then shake is going to matter some. But you are still better off or as good as the low density pixel situation.

I think one of the great practical uses that does not get as much press is in macro photography. I would love to see what kind of cropped detail I could pull out of macro shots, but stability would then be very important. However, now we are talking about the technology allowing for greater scrutiny of IQ... which is a new way of looking at it and defining IQ.

The other aspect is the large stitched shots. In another thread, HDNitehawk started zooming in on someones stitched pictures to look for wild life in a huge stitched picture that covered a huge area. I was really impressed with the resolution. But in practicality, if it was to be printed for viewing, I would standing back to look at it. However, if I had the ability to step up and see really sharp, up close detail, it would be cool. At that point the artistry of the composition goes out the window, and it becomes more of a cool spectacle (so to speak).

Sorry, my age is showing when I use words like "cool".

Pat