In a sense, magapixels matter to amateurs more than professionals. People with less experience place way too much importance on that number than it deserves..
You can take absolutely excellent pictures and blow them up to 8x10 with no problems with either of the cameras you are thinking about..
Until just recently, the second most expensive Nikon SLR had 4 megapixels. Mind you, they were good pixels..
Buy whichever camera fits your budget and take lots of pictures..
Nothing is enough for the man to whom nothing is enough...
I recently purchased the XT over the XTi for the same reason as you - to save some money. Like the previous poster said - usually MP's matter more to amateurs than to pros b/c of how cams are marketed to us amateurs. That being said, I have no regrets buying the XT over the XTi. I love the camera, I've blown up shots to 8x10 with fantastic results. I'd like to try bigger at some point too just to see how it'd look. You won't regret either purchase IMO.Just trying to learn.
Blog: http://novicephotog.blogspot.com/Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9778447@N07/..
2MP does not matter, at least up to 12 x 18 prints..
But the Rebel XTi is a better camera, in the sense of more convenient and easier to use, thanks to the much bigger screen on the back..
To me, that would be worth the first $100 in price difference..
I have an XT, and am very happy with it, and would not trade it in on an XTi. But if I was buying a new camera with no old one to trade in, I'd get the XTi instead of the XT..
That said, if budget truly is tight, the XT is a wonderful camera..
Back when the choice was between a 1.2MP camera and a 3MP camera, two megapixels was a big deal. Now it isn't so big. The EOS 350D/Rebel XT's sensor returns a 3456x2304 pixel image size at it's largest setting, while the EOS 400D/Rebel XTi delivers a 3888x2592 pixel image size under the same conditions..
This works out as a slightly larger print size at any given dots-per-inch resolution, and nothing more. Let's say you print at 300dpi, decide to print the full frame and don't use uprezzing in post-processing. The XT allows you to print 11.5x7.7" - just short of an A4 page. The XTi allows you to print 12.9x8.6" - slightly larger than an A4 page..
In other words, a 25% increase in megapixels returns a 12.5% increase in print size, for a 20% increase in cost (Amazon prices). Is that worth it for you?.
You name it, I've broken it...
Amateurs usually choose higher pixels because that's what salespeople tell them.. the higher the better. 2mp wouldn't make a big difference. With the same sensor size and more mp results in more artifacts. The XT and XTi have subtle differences... larger screen and improved focusing points.
I also have a G7 for more "on the go" shooting and uses the same accessories. I would not upgrade to the G9 because of the RAW feature since the XT has it..
Amateurs just like to take decent sharp pictures and generally don't enlarge to 8x10 or larger...
I tend to agree with the sentiments of most other posters here..
An amateur IMHO would not be able to tell the difference between the images generated by the two and infact most pro's I dare say would struggle. If you where asking the question of a 2mp difference 3 to 5 years ago, the answer would have been different. We've now come to a stage where more MP is becomming a moot point for most users excpet for the pro's..
Unless you plan on printing very large format constantly, I realy dont think it's worth it unless you can afford it. Even then, you'd have to ask the question of worth..
In complete darkness we are all the same. It is only our knowledge and wisdom that seperate us. Don't let your eyes deceive you..
S7000, HDR-SR7E, EOS 30D, EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6, EF-S 17-55 f2.8, EF-S 70-300 f4-5.6, Lowepro Computreker AW, Intel 2Ghz dual core, 4gb ram, dual 160GB HDD, 4TB NAS..
Given proper exposure, there are 4 key elements in image quality. (The lens, the sensor, the raw file conversion software algorithms and proper output preparation). While the MP DO matter, they are only one issue and a subset of the sensor's overall issues, at thaat..
More pixels presumably give you finer mapping of the scene. They do NOT automatically improve the quality. The main attribute of more pixels is to allow for larger enlargements at a some specific level of output quality. The perceived quality of that enlargement is reduced if the other componant of perceived quality is NOT present, which is dynamic range. Low dynamic range prints look flat. So, here is where noise and lower contrast comes into play..
More pixels also create problems for the sensor, in many cases. By trying to jam more mixels in a specific size sensor, more noise is exibited and must be dealt with. This is not always achieved equally by different cameras. This is one reason why a 6MP d-slr clearly can provide better imaging quality than a 6 MP P&S whit a sensor 1/2 or 1/3rd the same size.Van..
If you are a tight budget I would get the Rebel XT/350D 8 vs 10 MP will not make a big difference unless you want very large pictures..
I would spend the $150-200 you save on either better glass or an external flash depending on what your subjects will be..