umanemo,

There's still room for MFT cameras to get to much higher MP counts just as there's room for 35mm format to go way past the current 36MP. In order to take advantage of those higher MP, you will need great glass, and that's where it comes down to the details.

Nikon users are already looking at what glass can and can't deliver the goods to take advantage of 36MP. For example, here's a quick first impressions review of the Zeiss ZF.2 lenses on D800 by a guy who knows what he's talking about: Nikon/Zeiss ZF lens review, first impressions - The GetDPI Photography Forums

The same kind of analysis has to be done with any given system. The NEX-7 is an obvious choice in a body for you to look at, but Sony currently lacks any lens that can do that sensor justice at 20-24mm equivalent.

With Micro 4/3, I think you'd find that either the Olympus 12mm lens will do justice to a 16MP sensor. I have my doubts that it will fully satisfy a much higher MP sensor, when that comes along (and it will).

The Fuji X-Pro 1 lenses seem so far to be excellent (not surprising given Fuji's track record as a lens maker), and I think we can expect more of the same with the upcoming ultrawide prime. The X-Pro 1 sensor also delivers a high level of detail for its MP count.

If I had to guess, I'd say you'll be best off with the Fuji X-Pro 1 and 14mm lens for max resolution amongst compact cameras with ultrawide primes. You'll give up some of the operational advantages of Micro 4/3, such as very fast AF, image stabilization, even smaller size; and you'll also give up some resolution compared to a Nikon D800, but I think you'll be pleased with the compromise. There remains a small chance the Fuji 14 will be a dog, but that would be shocking.

On the other hand, I think you'd also be pleasantly surprised by how much detail you can get from a 16MP Micro 4/3 camera with the right lens.

__________________
Amin
Mu-43.com Webmaster (Site FAQ | Help Forum | My Disclosures | My Flickriver | My G+ Profile)

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates. We get a small referral fee when you buy after clicking our link. Your price is unaffected.

Hi Sammy, as I recall it wasn't the megapixels I was wanting increased it was the dynamic range, with the noise lowered. I'd have LOVED it if the sensor in the E-M5 was still 12MP, but offered the above.

Luckily, Sony managed to make a decent sensor, even while pumping UP the pixels.

By the way, just purchased an E500. 8MP and it was the last Oly to use the Kodak KAF CCD series sensors. I LOVE the pics that and the E-1 produce same series, given decent light. So, I'm no slave to maximizing pixels, or sometimes even the dynamic range or S/N ratio. What do the colors look like, even in tough conditions? What does the noise look like when pushed, like old film and really pleasant? I'll take it.

Of course.
The post was intended to illustrate the point that more megapixels isn't necessarily better

__________________
Olympus E-PL5
M. Zuiko 17mm ƒ1.8 | M. Zuiko 17mm ƒ2.8 | M. Zuiko 14-42 II | M. Zuiko 14-150 ED | M. Zuiko 45mm ƒ1.8 ED | M. Zuiko 75mm ƒ1.8 ED | M. Zuiko 75-300 ED II | Leica DG Summilux 25mm ƒ1.4 ASPH | Lumix G Vario 45-200 |

I like having 16MP, but the truth is I was all set with 6MP. I have 30-inch prints from my Canon 300D that still meet my criteria for "enough detail".

__________________
Amin
Mu-43.com Webmaster (Site FAQ | Help Forum | My Disclosures | My Flickriver | My G+ Profile)

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates. We get a small referral fee when you buy after clicking our link. Your price is unaffected.

I kept my 300D for a long time and was very happy with the output. It constantly amazes me that I now get better photos with a smaller sensor on my E-P3. It seems to me that overall system tech (lens design, in camera software, sensor design, etc.) has more impact than the number of MPs.

__________________
Love mercy, do justice, walk humbly - Micah 6:8
"A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words." Ansel Adams

I concur with your summary.

To me what matters is the triangle resolution-noise- DR. My sharpest lens is the 4/3 9-18 and I must still see improvements in terms of detail in the 12 Mpx over the 10 Mpx sensor.

I am wary to step to the 16 Mpx, because I saw the artefacts of the PL3, and I prefer the older E-P2 because it doesn't have them. What the E-M5 has better, perhaps much better, is DR.

So one must watch out for the tradeoffs of increasing the Mpx count. Having a good lens and a low AA filter probably matters more than having a higher MPx count, which will bring more noise anyway, be it corrected or not.

With today's sensor technology, makes you wonder how well the OMD would do at high ISO settings with 6mp instead

__________________
Olympus E-PL5
M. Zuiko 17mm ƒ1.8 | M. Zuiko 17mm ƒ2.8 | M. Zuiko 14-42 II | M. Zuiko 14-150 ED | M. Zuiko 45mm ƒ1.8 ED | M. Zuiko 75mm ƒ1.8 ED | M. Zuiko 75-300 ED II | Leica DG Summilux 25mm ƒ1.4 ASPH | Lumix G Vario 45-200 |

The engineers I've chatted with have mostly shared the opinion that we would have benefited minimally if at all at high ISO by keeping the pixels bigger. It's a question which gets asked often in forums, but the assumption that adding pixels substantially impairs high ISO performance doesn't seem to be true. For example, the D800 comes very close to the high ISO performance of the D4, and the NEX7 comes very close to the high ISO performance of the 5N.

Most of the tests showing otherwise either don't compare at equal output sizes or don't take into account that the higher res images can take some extra noise reduction in post for the same final level of detail. The biggest review site of them all fails to take either of those into account in their comparison tool.

__________________
Amin
Mu-43.com Webmaster (Site FAQ | Help Forum | My Disclosures | My Flickriver | My G+ Profile)

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates. We get a small referral fee when you buy after clicking our link. Your price is unaffected.

It's true, and for the last few years, I've been especially impressed by how far our RAW processing apps have come. I go back to some of my G1 files in Lightroom 4, and it's as if I did a retrospective sensor upgrade. I wish I could go back and try some of those Canon RAWs again, but unfortunately I processed those in C1 Pro and only kept the JPEGs.

__________________
Amin
Mu-43.com Webmaster (Site FAQ | Help Forum | My Disclosures | My Flickriver | My G+ Profile)

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates. We get a small referral fee when you buy after clicking our link. Your price is unaffected.

All I see with higher pixel counts amounts to literally splitting hairs. I'm sure such high count sensors make the pixel peepers happy, but all I see is a much larger raw file size, which bothers me more. I never have to crop images that much, nor print them in large formats. And when I do with my current gear, as long as they were shot well, they stand up to being printed at some very large sizes. I'll take a 16mp over 24 or 36 any day.