I just can't get my head round why Ken Rockwell keeps saying that having 10mp is no better than having 6
Indeed your intuition is saying something else, but the whole megapixel race was driven (I think) by consumers wanting 'bigger numbers' just because it was a larger number and therefore sounded better when boasting about your latest aquisition to the neighbor. As technology develops (as is still the case with digicam sensors) we might eventually get to a point where we can get a good quality 25 megapixel sensor (which is roughly the amount of information on old fashioned negative film), but that will take time. Until then every new sensor will suffer quality issues which degrades the quality of your photos. Also the sensor is one thing but the camera software behind it is another important issue. That's why two different cameras with the same sensors can deliver two different images.
The thing to ask yourself is what are you going to do with those photos that you shoot? I used to have a 2 MP camera and I can easily print those photos at A4 size. More than enough for my purpose. I now have a 4 MP digicam and just last week I had two photos printed at 30x45cm. At that size I was just beginning to see some quality loss, but only when I was 5cm away from the photo, and the fact that the photo was taken near the limits of the camera (quite dark, 400 ISO setting, which is max for my small Canon compact) must also be taken into account. When framed and hanging on the wall the photo looks brilliant. I cannot see myself printing photos any larger than that, so do I need more megapixels???
...but another $800, I know they say the lens is the prime part of the camera, but can it really be worth that much?
Yes, it is.
And I can say that without ever having touched that lens
That particular lens has a very large zoom range, is a very good quality piece of Nikon glass and has an in-built vibration reduction mechanism. All of that costs money. If you are thinking of buying a D200 or a D70s, then you might choose the kit lens that is available with the D70s which is a 18-70mm lens. This lens alone will set you back some $400 I'm guessing (based on the price I would pay in Europe). Compared to the lens you named you can see that the zoom range is smaller and there is no VR system. These are pretty 'normal' prices to pay for good quality Nikon lenses.
In the end you are better off saving money on your camera body and investing in good lenses. I think that the lens can account for 80-90% of the quality of the photo.
As for why the prices differ so much, I cannot help you there. The issue we've got here in The Netherlands is that you can save a few bucks if you decide to get an imported model, i.e. from Germany, the US or Hongkong. The downside is that you get a manual in English (not a problem for me, but it can be for others) and that you may have problems getting your camera serviced under warranty. I'm only a few mouseclicks and the decision itself away from buying a D70s kit but I will get a properly imported model for that reason. The fact that I can then go to the local Nikon service center if anything arises is an important factor for me.
Anyway, I hope I haven't cluttered up the issue any more. Good luck with your purchase
