Just picked up a Sony A6000

BolleDuc wrote:

There seems nothing with your gear. And yes downsampling one photo but not the other is not an apples-to-apples comparison. I wouldn't worry so much about small differences in JPEG sharpness. If you are shooting a paid shoot use the best gear you have and use RAW and tweak it to your satisfaction. Else stop worrying so much that your kit lens might not be the best lens ever. Of course it's not; it's a compromise lens... that said it's capable of some really great photos anyway. https://www.flickr.com/groups/2122756@N21/pool/

And APS-C and MFT, even at relatively slow apertures, is capable of DOF effects if you are close enough to the subject. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

I didn't downsample or change anything, they are both jpegs, straight from the camera. It's just that at 100% the APS-C sensor is 24MP, with slightly larger photosites, vs the 16MP of my E-PM2 & it is therefore "larger" on screen. So even though I'm not downsampling, is that a valid way to compare?

The links are very helpful, it certainly looks like the camera & lens is capable of some nice stuff & the DOF Master page explained just what I need to understand for that question. Thank you.

Reasonable minds can differ about the "proper" way to compare images of different megapixels, but I like the idea that you should equalize them at print size. That is, at any given print size such as 8x10" how does the photo look?  If you look at it that way, one should downsample the 24MP image to 16MP when compared 24 vs 16 MP images.  Somewhat problematic is the difference in aspect ratio, though... makes apples-to-apples comparisons a little harder.

Glad you found the link helpful.