How many megapixels should a decent dslr camera have?

I'm choosing the camera I want for Christmas, I'm an art student and do a lot of photography within it, so I'm asking for a dslr camera for Christmas. My friend has the Nikon D3100, I really like that camera, but she won't let me get the same one as her! She wants to be "original" so I need to find one, that's of good quality for under £350. I was looking at the canon EOS 1100D, this is only 12.2 megapixels and the Nikon one is 14 megapixels, how much better quality will the Nikon one be compared to the canon? If anyone could recommend a good quality camera, either Nikon, Sony or Canon under £350 and of professions standard I would be really grateful, thank you.

Anything more than 8 on a cropped sensor is fine - it'll blow a 16MP compact out of the water due to the bigger sensor.

If you really like the D3100 you should just get that.
But 12.2 mega pixels will be absolutely fine. I have a Nikon D300, that has 12.2 megapixels too, and I have never needed more. I can blow the photos up to A3 no problem, I could even go bigger than that but I just never have. People obsess over megapixels but there's really no need, unless you are printing really huge prints you don't need that many. You will not get a better quality image just because of the megapixels.

I would say get the Nikon D3100 instead of the Canon 1100D, it looks like a better camera overall.
Check this comparison: http://snapsort.com/...ikon_D3100
Don't worry about your friend, thats pretty petty of her to say that.

Also remember that the Nikon D3100 doesn't have a built in focus motor, so you will have to make sure the lens has one, otherwise it won't autofocus. But a lot of lenses do.

If you are buying a new camera then it has enough pixels. Cameras have had enough pixels for two years. High pixels is to attract people who don't know better. Stay away from Sony. Stick with Canon first Nikon second. Most cameras cost about $550 (USA dollars) how that stacks up with your currency, i have no idea.

My Canon 650D has 18 megapixels, but it's more than enough for my case. It all really comes down to how you are gonna be printing it though. For bigger prints, you'll need more megapixels, and the opposite for smaller prints. You said you want one for under 350 pounds. Try the Canon T3 or the Nikon D3100.

Hope I helped!

1) Having friends with the same (at least brand and series) camera allows you to purchase and share resources you might not be able to afford on your own. (Formalize exactly who owns what).

Mps, non issue really. A 3mp file will exceed most home printers ability to print an 8X10
8Mp cameras get a decent print to 24"x36"
A 12mp full frame can print to 5' tall

And it is likely that the biggest demand for your photos will be a HDTV at a little over 2mp (Facebook and youtube photos are measured in KB which is why a cell phone photo can look good here.)

Get the camera you want. Prices being equal, quality will also be equal and a couple MPs will not make a functional difference.

Frankly you won't ever need more than 6 unless you are a working photographer. I have made 20x24 prints from my EOS 300D without trouble.

There's a point for professionals to sometimes need more than 12.

Decency is relative. To some cultures, a micro mini skirt is disgustingly appalling. To some others, it's pleasurably welcomed.

http://keerok-photography.blogspot.com/2012/09/megapixels-is-only-about-picture-size.html

The same is true with dSLR's. If you don't print your pictures and just view them with your camera or cellphone, then a 6MP is more than enough. If you do heavy graphics manipulation or print to bus sized tarpaulins and building sized billboards, then the more MP the better.