Do more pixels mean sacrificing flexibility?

[Cindy-Clicks]

I own a T3i and it is litterally falling apart on me after just 19 months, due to the sheer volume of photos I take.  I decided to get an upgrade but with the new 24 pixel camera I have,  I have had nothing but problems from the start.  With the T3i,  I frequently shoot with my Tamron 28-300 zoom and  I can consistently take  beautifully clear shots at 1/13 sec at 300mm, hand held.  

I have been told that when you increase pixels the camera gets pickier and needs a tripod.  The way I shoot, I find a tripod to be a great hinderance.  I find it difficult to believe that a more expensive camera will do less for me than the T3i.  I would like to know what your thoughts are.  I will take this camera back and buy another T3i body if that is what I need to do.   I show my work in galleries and was hoping to get less pixillation on larger prints.  I might want to get the new 16-300 lens I hear Tamron is coming out with, if I stay with the T3i. 

[MikeSowsun]

The OP brought up the idea of pixel density because they didn't like the results form the 24MP Pentax K-3 vs their 18MP T3i. "I have been told that when you increase pixels the camera gets pickier and needs a tripod.  

You are right, the 70D is much closer to the T3i than I thought, and it shouldn't make any difference.   

[Skirball]

There is so much nonsense in this thread I’m hesitant to  jump in.  But just to stick to the original question:

“I have been told that when you increase pixels the camera gets pickier and needs a tripod.”

I have no idea what pickier means, but in general this makes no sense.  Nor does your comments about moving to full frame.  I don’t think you understand what full frame (assuming similar resolution) entails, but I’d recommend researching before getting one.  The 6D, for example, has a very similar resolution as your T3i, as far as larger prints and pixilation, you’re not going to see a difference.  Nor are you from pretty much any of the rest of Canon’s lineup.  The one camera where you might argue a substantial difference in enlargements (also debatable) is Nikon’s high-res behemoth the D800.  But people are making clean enlargements with far less.

But who cares, you’re an internationally awarded photographer with photos that have less resolution than a 4 year old cellphone. Just keep doing what you’re doing.  Though I would also consider teaching.  You have unique skills to consistently get sharp photos at 300mm and 1/13 handheld.  People would pay good money for that ability.