Does a cameras mega pixels (MP) matter much for first time camera for photographer?

I'm trying to decided which camera I want to buy and on fence with two different cameras that are about the same price, but one has 12MP and the other literally has double MP at 24MP. 

For a beginner, should this make a huge difference.  What other things in a camera should I be looking at when deciding? 

There is more than meets the eye... Go to a site like snapsort.com & enter both models into the compare fields. MP's are but one consideration when shopping for a camera

snapsort.com/compare

I agree!  More than meets the eye.   There are always tradeoffs in photography...big aperture, small aperture.  Fast shutter speed, slow shutter speed.  12 MP, 24 MP.   All things considered, the 24 MP camera is better...and so is the 12 MP, depends on the purpose.  I agree that looking at overall reviews should help.   

More thoughts....  For example, if you want landscape photography and you use a tripod and you want to blow up big, the 24 MP might be better.  If you plan on a lot of low light photography (kid in a play), the 12 MP might provide better low-light results.

A problem, though, is that not all 24 (or 12) MP sensors are the same...so it really isn't a comparison between numbers...and that gets you back to looking at reviews of the whole camera.

Most people fall in love with the camera they buy.

The body I use must be ergonomically friendly to my hand and layout must make sense.
Then I rather concentrate on great lenses.

As a Nikon user who has many older manual focus lenses, I want a camera that will let me utilize those older Pro grade lenses with the least limitations & not be forced into buying the "Latest & Greatest". That is one reason why ,regardless of mp's et al, I opt for a higher grade body & not a base model unit.

Higher Mp can be beneficial if the camera is a full frame DSLR with an expensive pro grade lens.  At the other end of the spectrum, a little consumer compact, you can also find Mp differences, but they are meaningless.  The sensor is so tiny that the extra Mp makes no practical difference in IQ.  With M4/3 and APS-C sensor cameras it's a "kinda maybe sometimes" thing.  Generally not a deal breaker.

Kelly Cook

all good post  (+1)

IMO if the camera has 10MP+ that is plenty, from there find something that fits nicely in your hands and you like how the controls are set up

I have to second that. While all of the extra MPs are great, for most people they are a waste, and irrelevant. Unless you plan on printing very, very large photos, then all you really want to worry about is the usual, and that is ISO range, and what the camera will allow you to set. If all you plan on doing is posting on the interbutz, then a 6MP camera is fine as well.

TJ Pix wrote: I'm trying to decided which camera I want to buy and on fence with two different cameras that are about the same price, but one has 12MP and the other literally has double MP at 24MP. 

For a beginner, should this make a huge difference.  What other things in a camera should I be looking at when deciding? 

It all comes down to the end result: What size prints are you going to want? Here's a helpful chart on pixel size vs print size:

Screamin Scott wrote: There is more than meets the eye... Go to a site like snapsort.com & enter both models into the compare fields. MP's are but one consideration when shopping for a camera

snapsort.com/compare

Interesting site, their scoring platform  I don't understand.  How are they coming up with which cameras rank the highest there?

My first DLSR was a Nikon D70 with 6mp's. It did everything I asked it to do. Took a photo of a buck deer years aago with it aand had it blown up to 16x20, turned out great. The trik is fill the frame with what you want, 6mp's just doesn't crop that well. Then I went to a 10 mayby 12 mp camera, D5000. The only advantage I could see was the amount of cropping the higher mp's let me do. Now I still have the D5000 but useed a D7000 for a lot of what I do. Again it went up on mp's. 16 I think, and the ability to crop got even more noticeable. I got it for the speed as I do fast running dog's. What I found was the speed wasn't all I expected it to be and to help get better photo's, I cut back on the frame's per sec to 3! The focus point's reall throw me off with this camera. It has 39 and I really don't get anymore good focused photo's than I did with the 5000! Those little squares come up all over and keep changing, I have no idea how to work with it well but wish I had just one focus point right in the middle of the view finder. For me, all those extra focus point's are a distraction. But for mp's, the D5000 had enough to do what I wanted but the camera was also light and small, uncomfortable! I think the pixel chase is more sales pitch than anything else.

Don Fischer wrote: My first DLSR was a Nikon D70 with 6mp's. It did everything I asked it to do. Took a photo of a buck deer years aago with it aand had it blown up to 16x20, turned out great. The trik is fill the frame with what you want, 6mp's just doesn't crop that well. Then I went to a 10 mayby 12 mp camera, D5000. The only advantage I could see was the amount of cropping the higher mp's let me do. Now I still have the D5000 but useed a D7000 for a lot of what I do. Again it went up on mp's. 16 I think, and the ability to crop got even more noticeable. I got it for the speed as I do fast running dog's. What I found was the speed wasn't all I expected it to be and to help get better photo's, I cut back on the frame's per sec to 3! The focus point's reall throw me off with this camera. It has 39 and I really don't get anymore good focused photo's than I did with the 5000! Those little squares come up all over and keep changing, I have no idea how to work with it well but wish I had just one focus point right in the middle of the view finder. For me, all those extra focus point's are a distraction. But for mp's, the D5000 had enough to do what I wanted but the camera was also light and small, uncomfortable! I think the pixel chase is more sales pitch than anything else.

I also had the D70 - good little camera but as the megapixels increased it became obsolete. I will tell you that after shooting with the Nikon D800 - megapixels DO matter as the 36 megapixels brings it closer to medium format quality. The results I'm getting are just stunning and better than anything I ever got with my film based 35mm cameras.

However I do agree with your comment that the megapixel war is about selling cameras but not in the frivolous way that cameras were sold using shutter speeds as a selling point. When I sold cameras back in the 90's it was all about the shutter speeds and customers would come in and want the camera that had the fastest shutter speed. Most of the time the customer had no desire to shoot sports photography or anything needing 12,000/sec shutter speeds. It was all about the numbers...about having "The Best' and I guess that holds true today but in the present better megapixels means better quality.

IMO as long as you have over 10MP, you are good to go. That gives you room to grow.