more pixels are better!

Les Olson wrote:

Iforgetwhat8was4 is correct (and has been all through). Of course
the lens makes a huge difference, but you can't now introduce the
lens as a factor, having previously said it was all down to the
sensor size. Plus it does not help using undefined terms like
"superior detail".

Please show me where I say that IMAGE QUALITY is all about sensor size and nothing else. I've said that about noise, but never image quality. The OP asked about image quality, which I furthered narrowed as image detail. The first thing I said was that image detail is affected by lens aberrations. You can't take an image without a lens (unless you're into pinhole cameras.)

Graystar was also wrong earlier:

"Comparision of RAW images show that the G10, having nearly 50% more
pixel than the LX3, has pretty much the same noise performance as the
LX3. Obviously there's a problem with DxO's analysis."

On DxO's analysis...

Where do you see a reference to DxO Labs comparisons of the G10 and LX3 sensors in my statement? I was talking about MY OWN comparison of the G10 and LX3 RAW images, which I've written about in other posts. The analysis referred to in the last line is DxO Labs comparison of the 350D to the 1DsMIII, which was the topic of the entire post. Why would I rely on one DxO analysis to support my point that another DxO analysis isn't accurate?

You're taking my words out of context left and right!

Unlike others here, I don't care about the math. I only care about what I see in the final print. If two cameras produce identical prints with the same apparent detail levels and noise levels, then it doesn't matter what the graphs say...in my eyes the performance of the two cameras are equal.

Because I only care about the final print, any terms I throw out such as “superior detail” and “image detail” are all necessarily subjective. Here...I've provided my own definitions for my own terms...

“Superior detail” - When one print of a scene clearly exhibits greater image detail than another.

“image detail” - The recognizable detail in an image. Depending on the scene, a print with greater resolution may exhibit superior image detail, despite having more noise, than a lower resolution image with less noise. This occurs when signal levels are high enough (bright images) and contrast is high enough such that detail is still recognizable through the noise.

But image detail alone doesn't make a quality image. That's why I separate image detail from image quality. Image quality is a combination of high detail, low noise, and other factors. When comparing a G10 ISO 80 image to a 50D ISO 100 image, not only is the 50D's image detail much better than the G10, but the image quality is far better as well.