X-E1 vs Canon 5D Mark III - continued

I have to say I don't think 18% extra resolution is much.

You might consider it "huge" but I consider anything less than doubling of the pixel count inconsequential.

For example when I upgraded from Nikon D100 to 350d I saw no practical increase in detail from the 33% pixel increase.

I did see a noticeable difference between the D100 and the 14MP Kodak 14n.There was also a noticeable difference between the D100 and the 450D (12MP).

However I see no noticeable difference between 450D and the K5 (16MP) I now use ,or the G1 and G3 (12MP to 16MP). Test prints I've made from review sites show no detectable difference between NEX5n and NEX7 in prints.  I've also tried to find differences between D800 and the little Sony RX100 (20MP 1" sensor vs 36MP full frame.  There is a difference but you have to scrutinise the prints very hard and print to A2 or A1 to see it. And even then, it's less about resolution and more about noise and the "ugliness" of the pixel data.

So, unlike review sites and pixel peepers, as far as image quality is concerned I really see little to get excited about in a difference of a handful of megapixels.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/