Why does the Nikon D40 only have 6.1 megapixels? Will it make a difference?

I'm an amatuer photographer looking to buy my first camera. I really like the Rebel XT but am sad to say that amazon has bumped up the price by about 50 bucks. I am on a tight budget and I have heard people recommend the Nikon D40. Problem is I don't like that it only has 6.1 megapixels. The point and click camera I have now is only 6.1 megapixels and I feel if I'm going to pay that much money for a camera I should at least get some sort of an upgrade (the Rebel XT is 8.1). Anyone own a Nikon D40 who can help me out?

I don't know this model, but as a photographer;

1) I'd say that anything over 4Mp is enough for 8x10 printouts, so unless you are planning to do more than that, it shouldn't be a problem as a starter camera.

2) Anything over 4Mp will give you enough resolution to work with, I'd be more concerned with image quality.

Between a 4-8Mp camera with great image quality, and a 6-12Mp camera with so-so image quality... guess which one I'd pick.

Higher resolution doesn't mean better.

I have some pictures that I took years ago on a 2Mp camera, AND that was set at a lower resolution anyways, and I still won second prize in a photo contest that I entered just for the heck of it. ( http://www.geocities.com/imfallen_angel/... )

One of my picture that's a favorite (so I used it to show the capacity of a color printer) and people love the picture, even though there's barely enough pixels to print on a 8 1/2x 11. (1024x768)

(here it is: http://www.geocities.com/imfallen_angel/... )


Hope that helps.

The marketing race for "more megapixels" would like us to believe that "more is better". Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The number of pixels is only one of many factors affecting image quality and more pixels is not always better. The quality of a pixel value can be described in terms of geometrical accuracy, color accuracy, dynamic range, noise, and artifacts. The quality of a pixel value depends on the number of photodetectors that were used to determine it, the quality of the lens and sensor combination, the size of the photodiode(s), the quality of the camera components, the level of sophistication of the in-camera imaging processing software, the image file format used to store it, etc. Different sensor and camera designs make different compromises.

There is no significant difference between 8.1MP and 6.1MP when comparing 2 DSLRs. The big difference is that you are changing from a P&S to a DSLR, which will use a larger and higher quality sensor and will yield much better quality pictures. I shoot with a D50, which uses the same sensor as the D40 and get very high quality resolution shots with it.

Take a look at this review. http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

Megapixels are what sell cameras, but not what determines "best", or even useful for that matter. Megapixels only decide the dimensions, in pixels, the final image size will be if maximum is chosen. Quality depends on a different set of factors and between the nikon D40 and canon rebel XT or XTi, there is little difference as they are all similar in image processing, ISO sensitivity, physical size and ergonomics, frame rate, etc...etc... Anything more than 10-12 mp on a 22x14mm (DX or APS-C) image sensor is garbage anyway, whether CCD or CMOS, due to pixel pitch which is the main problem with point and shoot digicams. The more pixels you jam onto a sensor that does not itself increase in size, the smaller those pixels need to be, thus reducing their effective dynamic range, which increases noise. So unless you've got $5000 to spend, to be honest 6mp is all you'd ever need.

The difference in resolution can be represented here:
http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapix...

Personally, if you require the added benefit of 8mp to 6, I say spend the extra money. But the brunt of your investment, if image quality is of greater concern, will be in the lens.