Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?I'm with you. I've found that because of space and my personal requirements I mostly shoot at RAWs1. For more artsy stuff and rare opportunities I'll jump up to the 21mp, but to add another 8mb per shot on hard drives would mean that I'm expanding my 1tb drives even further. I just don't need them, it seems like marketing going insane (do people still buy one camera over another because of megapixels?)
Low light / high ISO performance is way more important to me than adding (what are in most cases) superfluous pixels.
Hard drive space is a complete non-issue. A 2 TB drive is about $80, and can hold about 80,000 RAW files at 25 MB each (from Canon 5DII). That's 40,000 images per year for two years. Even with a second drive for full backup it's still only $160 in hard drive space, or $80 per year. This is a trivial cost compared to other costs of photography.
As long as low light performance is not compromised I'm ok with high MP counts, however it doesn't seem to work that way, so I'm in favor of sacrificing some pixels in order to get great low light performance.