Is it true that MP has very little to do with image quality?
In 2005 my sister had this relatively high end Canon or Nikon digital SLR. I think it took 6 or 7 MP.
However, the image quality was very good. It was far better than most point and shoots you'll buy today.
So, is it wrong or right to say that MPs are (almost) irrelevant and it's the lens and CCD that make all the difference?
No, but your face does.
Megapixels are very overrated but most people do not know that.
The CCD is the megapixels.
The lenses are the key.
It depends on the size of the sensor. DSLRs have sensors that are 15 times bigger than P&S cameras.
This should help you understanding the Pixel count and how they are important.
Usually the larger the individual pixel the better.
MPs = resolution, not picture quality. In most cases more MPs will enable you to blow the picture up to a larger size while retaining detail but the quality of the detail will depend on your sensor size and type and on the image processor in your camera.
Megapixels (MP) is just a measurement of the size of the picture, how big or small it is. IT has nothing to do with picture quality. What makes the difference? It's you and your abilities to take a picture. The lens, CCD, the camera and the lens are nothing but tools.
MP usually allows you to print you pictures larger. As in larger prints… MP are great selling points for stores and what not. But don't buy a camera based on it's MP… It really is only for printing… Per se.
The answer is the LENS! The SLR lens is much bigger than the point and shoot's glass. I used to have a Nikon Coolpix 5000 (5MP) that had a bigger lens - I printed 16x20s that looked great.
People are excited about their phone camera's MP but since the lenses are so small, you just end up with millions of blurry pixels