Do you feel like you can rely on 3200? From the test shots I have seen in reviews, the noise begins to climb on that sensor quicker after 800 than I have seen with the 40D, 30D...
NOT true according to the RAW files here:
with everything upscaled to 40 MP.
The 18 MP 7D/550D sensor trashes ALL older APS-C sensors from low to high ISO. That's why Nikon is going to release a 16 MP D90 update soon.
Even when the 7D RAW files are compared to the 1Ds3:
"Surprisingly, the 7D is relatively good in this aspect. It is not as good as the 1DsIII, but the difference is small - I'd say about 0.5 stop - and it is a bit better than the 500D and 50D."
"The 7D seems to capture slightly more detail into highlights (even though it shows a slight magenta cast), while the 1DsIII captures a bit more detail in the shadows - but the differences are so small that in practice you won't see any real difference."
I guess this pixel density myth won't die till the 16 MP Nikon D95 is released.
Wrong. This idea doesn't take into account the inherent noise in the technology.
People like to point to photos that show the 7D doing just fine, BUT that is in well lit scenes. When the light begins to drop -- when some of us photographers like to shoot or are forced to shoot -- the 7D's small pixels are a problem. There is no substitute for larger pixels, period, if you are looking for better dynamic range and reduced noise. In the link above he explores the ideal pixel size (too few hurts images and too small hurts). The 7D and 50D crossed the line for the APS-C. I think a 13-14 megapixel APS-C is the sweet spot. Nikon, if the rumors are true, is being dragged into this pixel war that is not helping us folks.