Olympus resolution and sensor future ?

[cainn24]

The A7S has a new sensor tech not in any of the other FF DSLRs, and the high ISO performance comes at the expense of base ISO DR. But, aside from the A7S, is there any sensor out there that has less noise, at the image level for a given exposure, than the 36 MP D810, which has the highest pixel count of any consumer camera? (Yes, the 50 MP Canon 5Ds will soon be out, but Canon tech is not the latest and greatest, as it were)

Strictly by the pixel densities, not counting 1" sensor:

Nikon D810 FF 36MP - 0.0417 MP/sq.mm

Samsung NX-1 ASP-C BSI 28.2MP - 0.0858 MP/sq.mm (the highest density)

Olympus E-M5 II 16MP m43 - 0.0711 MP/sq.mm (the next highest density)

m43 equivalent next jump would be 19.3MP using Samsung BSI sensor for m43. So it is entirely feasible for 20MP Olympus next move.

I would throw the 1" sensor into the mix and go beyond 20 MP, to be honest.

For the Sony 20MP 1" BSI sensor on the RX10, the pixel density would be 0.1722 MP/sq.mm; the highest of all and twice as dense as the Samsung sensor.

You make it sound bad, but it's really not. Perhaps you don't mean to.

Anyway I think it's pretty clear that for the same print/display size a 4/3"-type sensor full of Sony's latest 1"-type BSI tech would give us appreciably better IQ in pretty much every respect.

 

[joeletx]

The A7S has a new sensor tech not in any of the other FF DSLRs, and the high ISO performance comes at the expense of base ISO DR. But, aside from the A7S, is there any sensor out there that has less noise, at the image level for a given exposure, than the 36 MP D810, which has the highest pixel count of any consumer camera? (Yes, the 50 MP Canon 5Ds will soon be out, but Canon tech is not the latest and greatest, as it were)

Strictly by the pixel densities, not counting 1" sensor:

Nikon D810 FF 36MP - 0.0417 MP/sq.mm

Samsung NX-1 ASP-C BSI 28.2MP - 0.0858 MP/sq.mm (the highest density)

Olympus E-M5 II 16MP m43 - 0.0711 MP/sq.mm (the next highest density)

m43 equivalent next jump would be 19.3MP using Samsung BSI sensor for m43. So it is entirely feasible for 20MP Olympus next move.

I would throw the 1" sensor into the mix and go beyond 20 MP, to be honest.

For the Sony 20MP 1" BSI sensor on the RX10, the pixel density would be 0.1722 MP/sq.mm; the highest of all and twice as dense as the Samsung sensor.

You make it sound bad, but it's really not. Perhaps you don't mean to.

Anyway I think it's pretty clear that for the same print/display size a 4/3"-type sensor full of Sony's latest 1"-type BSI tech would give us appreciably better IQ in pretty much every respect.

No, I didn't mean to. As a matter fact, I am all for Sony 20MP pixel density if Olympus can put their magics and control the noise; then we can have 40MP OMD without pixel shifting trick.

 

[DonParrot]

Unless you're taking static landscape pictures on a tripod, you won't get the sensor's full resolution anyhow. The tiniest bit of camera movement or "shutter shock" will lower the images resolution by more than the difference between "only" 16 MP and 24 MP.

/sigh

If I was a religious man I'd be praying for patience right about now. Anyway...

Watch this:

E-M5 mark II, 75-300mm II @ 300mm, 1/100s, tripod vs hand-held:


Tripod left (IS off, electronic shutter), hand-held right (IS on, electronic shutter)

Those are center crops from an A2 test chart shot from about 9 meters away. Multiple images were shot from the tripod to ensure consistency. Multiple hand-held shots were taken as well (from a standing position utilizing typical long-lens technique), and a little bit more than half of them were just as sharp as the tripod mounted shot. So if I can do this @ 300mm and 1/100s, which is a pretty challenging situation (and I wasn't even feeling particularly steady at the time), I guess the question is this: what has led you to conclude that this problem you speak of is so significant that the benefit of more MP would be subsumed by the problem of camera shake?

Just to show that we're not coming up against a print resolution limitation here, here is the chart element in question at a greater degree of magnification (shorter camera-to-subject distance):



Unfortunately I didn't think to do a High-Res shot of this chart because I wasn't approaching this test from that angle at the time. If I repeat it I will. But we can still demonstrate that there is indeed a resolution advantage to be realized even with this lens at this focal length: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55629712

My guess is that given the effectiveness of IBIS, the eradication of shutter-shock, and the fact that much of the time people are probably going to be shooting at shorter focal lengths and faster shutter speeds, the MP advantage will be a real one.

So if you could explain me the real-word advantage...?

Who cares about x00-percent crops? Apart from the pixel peepers, that is.

--
I wish I was an OLYgarch

 

[Jorginho]

Hi,

I'm sure they will release a 20-24 mp sensor on their next camera line. They are falling behind, if not. But smart of Olympus not to rush it on the account of IQ, but I guess it is pass rush mode now in 2015.

See you get lots of replies with people defending their 16mp cameras It was the same in the Nikon camp when Nikon had only 12mp sensors. Nothing more was needed he he

Nothing more IS needed.

Wrong.

Maybe you think thats good enough for you, but who gave you the right to speak for others?

But you think you can do so? Say no more.

Get real! You are chasing a bait the industry is holding out of your reach - just - to get your money.

Yeah right, sorry but not everybody is taking pics of their cat to upload to facebook.

Amazingly, Six MP pics were used for high-gloss mag covers, big placards and everything else and these pics still are gorgeous. I only can repeat it: get real.

Same is true for film. Sports were shot with it, landscapes etc. Why are we not still using film. Why not 2 MPi? Why not 4. One point: 16 MP is not enough to get the best out of an A2 or A2+ printer, like the Epson 3800-series. You indeed need more MPixels for that (and I think more than 24 MPixels too).

Oly's 16mp sensor is a great improvement to the 12mp sensor they recycled over and over again, but compared to the current competition it's just not good enough anymore.

The improvement wasn't the MP count but other features such as the better high-ISO performance. 16 MP is absolutely good enough and with the high-res mode that already has been announced to be usable handheld, in the E-M1 MKII, a 30-MP sensor is even more absurd.

So Mediumfromat, Nikon D810...all absurd. 60 Mp. 50, 36....80 Mp. And now you start talking about 40 Mp Oly. How come you are talking about that at all in any positive way. Why should someone not want 30 MP (who ever said that umber in this thread btw..;-)), but ike a 40 MP sensor that even handheld is stilll restricted in use?

If it ain't needed, does it matter in what form we get it???

When I can buy a 28mp mirrorless aps-c with better image quality, a sensor with almost half the resolution and worse high iso just doesn't cut it anymore.

Well, IQ always is a sum of several factors and to be honest, I haven't seen any NX1 pictures (not low-light) that couldn't have been shot at least as well with one of the crurrent µFT cameras. In addition, µFT is lens-wise so clearly ahead that Samsung will have to try very very hard to catch up.
And the high-ISO performance is hampered not improved by more MPs.
By the way: What do you need this higher reslution for? For a 1.600 x 0.900 metre poster you look at from a 10cm distance? Your'e caught in the net of the industry's marketing and don't realise what happened.
And the particularly regrettable factor: the more people act and argue like you, the more the µFT manufacturers will be forced to increase the MP count indeed. With the result of no better pics at all - but every purchaser of new cameras being forced to buy a new hard drive, new software, new processors and so on and - of course - a new K4 screen to be able to detect the 'improvement' provided by the new sensor.
All this makes me really sick. How can adult people be so gullible?

The samsung is the superior sensor, only very high ISO with very dark shades indeed perform less than a D7200 especially but it does perform better in high ISo with good light. I would say th eformer is more important than the latter samsung lenses are fine, very nice. May be not exactly as good as mFT but close. Main objection with them is size of the best ones. at least to me. But the multitude of panasonic and Oly lenses are to be found in the sub 100 mm category. Many lenses there are double or exchangable. Like 25 mm, 42,5 or 45 mm, 15 or 17 or 20 mm. 12-35 anny 12-40 Oly. The line up is not well thought out, focussing on primes so much. samsung and Fuji understand this better.

There is so much wrong with your way of thinking I don't even know what to say but just imagine this: If nobody would buy any cameras anymore because they'd all think what they have is good enough, there would also not be anymore cameras/features/improvements because every camera manufacturer would go out of business...

There are so many other things that still can and should be improved in cameras - such as AF performance, JPEG engines or the High-ISO performance mentioned by you and far more. The MP count, however, definitely doesn't need any improvement.

For you, Market is moving on and tells us all the market wants something different. and this simply means we will get it. Oly HR mode was not introduced for fun.

For me it's quite simple: If I don't get at least 22-24 mp with my next Oly 1-2 years down the road (Samsung has 28mp now) I will be spending my money elsewhere.

And I don't think I'm alone in this...

No you are certainly not alone at all. While the 16 MP offer enough for me, for landscapes I would very much like a 30-40 MP sensor as long as it gets me good enough IQ noisewise, DR wise too. While Ihave a passionate dislike of the Oly menusystem, the Em5MarkII for various reasons becomes mor eappealing to me. I have seen shots with a moving see that were very much to my liking and the low ISO noise at even ISO1600 is a great asset too for my shooting.

Farewell.

--
I wish I was an OLYgarch

 

[junk1]

They both look so-so to me, so you've proven neither works well...perhaps due to shutter shock type issues or we're at the limits of the lens' sharpness (and therefore adding pixels would not help).

An interesting experiment would be to shoot a test scene from a tripod at 16MP, and again in your camera's lower res mode and up-sample that image to 16MP to compare.

Maybe I'm just blind, but I see very little difference for example between Canon's old 18MP sensor's images and Sony's 24MP images.

 

[cainn24]

The A7S has a new sensor tech not in any of the other FF DSLRs, and the high ISO performance comes at the expense of base ISO DR. But, aside from the A7S, is there any sensor out there that has less noise, at the image level for a given exposure, than the 36 MP D810, which has the highest pixel count of any consumer camera? (Yes, the 50 MP Canon 5Ds will soon be out, but Canon tech is not the latest and greatest, as it were)

Strictly by the pixel densities, not counting 1" sensor:

Nikon D810 FF 36MP - 0.0417 MP/sq.mm

Samsung NX-1 ASP-C BSI 28.2MP - 0.0858 MP/sq.mm (the highest density)

Olympus E-M5 II 16MP m43 - 0.0711 MP/sq.mm (the next highest density)

m43 equivalent next jump would be 19.3MP using Samsung BSI sensor for m43. So it is entirely feasible for 20MP Olympus next move.

I would throw the 1" sensor into the mix and go beyond 20 MP, to be honest.

For the Sony 20MP 1" BSI sensor on the RX10, the pixel density would be 0.1722 MP/sq.mm; the highest of all and twice as dense as the Samsung sensor.

You make it sound bad, but it's really not. Perhaps you don't mean to.

Anyway I think it's pretty clear that for the same print/display size a 4/3"-type sensor full of Sony's latest 1"-type BSI tech would give us appreciably better IQ in pretty much every respect.

No, I didn't mean to. As a matter fact, I am all for Sony 20MP pixel density if Olympus can put their magics and control the noise; then we can have 40MP OMD without pixel shifting trick.

Olympus don't need to work any magic, people just need to realize that the appropriate way to compare sensor performance is at the image level (a given print/display size) and not at the pixel level. The DxO Labs results for both sensor types indicate that there is less than a stop between them at high ISOs under such conditions so when you bring the Sony tech up to 4/3"-type sizes the performance should be roughly equivalent, and even with a bit better dynamic range at low ISOs.

Of course neither Olympus or Panasonic would be bold enough to do this so we'll just have to settle for the incremental approach. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing MFT bodies split off in two directions (as we see in the FF world) so the people who appreciate more resolution can have what they want without the rest of the MFT user base being so constantly up in arms about it.

 

[Tom Ames]

It's funny.
In the automotive world, you have to buy a Bugatti if you want a 1000bhp production car. And you have to pay the price. The others opt for the more reasonable choices and are happy with it.
In the photographic world, marketing tries to hoax us into the idea that we all need the 1000bhp engine and that we all should pay the price. And unfortunately, this marketing works and quite a number of those who are well skilled are trapped and spread the multi-MP necessity around the world.
Well, I'm asking myself if they already have thrown all their pictures shot in the past decade with their oh so with insufficient equipment into the bin?
As I see it, this entire Multi-MP race is absolute ridiculous. Just as 4K or 8K TVs are. You really should try to get of the marketing's hook.

--
I wish I was an OLYgarch

If mpixs are that unimportant, why is there so much discussion about it?
It is not similarly important for everybody but this goes for most camera features.
As far as I remember SHG lenses were designed to be good for at least 20 mpix thus such a sensor would be within that specification.
If BSI allows for high quality 20 mpix then let's have it.
However I expect more from an OMD EM-1 II.
--
http://home.fotocommunity.de/andreaspastowski

Well said. For myself having used the Nikon D810 and Sony A7r for quite a while, I find the ability to crop very useful.

Comments like good photographers compose right the at the first shot, don't convince me And that most us us do not print large very often is also no valid argument for not having more resolution.

For brands like Sony, Nikon and Pentax I feel there is a lot less discussion for wanting more mp, I think at 24mp-36mp and even Canon's 50mp sensor satiesfies the big masses.

And I think Olympus is aware of this and will certainly move on from 16mp in their next step. DR, IBIS, handheld technique etc is of'course important, but keeping up with the future is needed for Olympus. Fuji will move on this year and that leaves Olympus....

 

[cainn24]

They both look so-so to me, so you've proven neither works well...perhaps due to shutter shock type issues or we're at the limits of the lens' sharpness (and therefore adding pixels would not help).

I don't think you were really paying attention. So I guess I will reiterate:

This proves that more detail can be resolved when you effectively put more megapixels behind the 75-300 II at 300mm and f/6.7. And the post you just responded to proves that IBIS is good enough that camera shake can be overcome even at shutter speeds as low as 1/100s under such conditions. So your assertion that more MP would provide no benefit is certainly false, particularly since this was a more challenging circumstance than the ones most people will typically encounter.

And shutter shock was not in play, at all, since I was utilizing a fully electronic shutter in all cases.

 

[Adrian Van]

I can see the resolution jumping to 20MP for m43 in next year or so in flagship cameras, to hit 20mp mark that cameras considered pro seem to be over 20mp, 24mp or higher. And to differentiate from other models.

There does need to be a balance between pixel pitch size, MP and low noise. Going over 20mp makes pixel pitch much smaller, which software would need to reduce even more noise, or better sensor design.

 

[junk1]

I don't agree that you've proven that.

Your other thread (the downsampled 40MP image) you pointed to (I think it was you anyhow!) doesn't prove it either...if anything, it disproves it because it proves the 16MP image is a tad softer than the downsampled image (which of course is 8 16MP images, not 40MP taken all at once, so that doe snot require a 40MP lens).

They both look so-so to me, so you've proven neither works well...perhaps due to shutter shock type issues or we're at the limits of the lens' sharpness (and therefore adding pixels would not help).

I don't think you were really paying attention. So I guess I will reiterate:

This proves that more detail can be resolved when you effectively put more megapixels behind the 75-300 II at 300mm and f/6.7. And the post you just responded to proves that IBIS is good enough that camera shake can be overcome even at shutter speeds as low as 1/100s under such conditions. So your assertion that more MP would provide no benefit is certainly false, particularly since this was a more challenging circumstance than the ones most people will typically encounter.

And shutter shock was not in play, at all, since I was utilizing a fully electronic shutter in all cases.

 

[cainn24]

So if you could explain me the real-word advantage...?

Sure: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55665722

If you don't shoot subject matter that lends itself well to the appreciation of fine detail, or don't care to examine it, or simply can't see the difference either as a result of an upper limit on your visual acuity or the resolution of your chosen display device, then it's probably true that it wont matter to you. And that's fine.

But for some of us the advantage is definitely there. And most importantly it is an avenue from which we can derive additional satisfaction from participating in this hobby, and that's about as "real" as it gets.

 

[junk1]

If the amount of movement (of stabilization error/limitation) is only 1/2 a pixel, of course you won't see any issue (not sure we'd see a 1 pixel error either). But if we doubled the sensor's resolution, with all else being the same, then we might see it (if the error is 1/2 pixel with a 16MP sensor).

In other words, you can't prove what you did not test - that a picture taken with a higher res sensor will in fact be noticeably sharper, even if hand held. you only proved that a 16MP images meets your definition of "just as sharp". Understand now?

...

And then there's the issue of lens sharpness. Whenever a new higher res camera comes out, the images are not much sharper than the older model. I surmise it's partly due to lens limitations (and focusing accuracy, shutter shock & mirror shock type issues; etc).

 

[DonParrot]

Hi,

I'm sure they will release a 20-24 mp sensor on their next camera line. They are falling behind, if not. But smart of Olympus not to rush it on the account of IQ, but I guess it is pass rush mode now in 2015.

See you get lots of replies with people defending their 16mp cameras It was the same in the Nikon camp when Nikon had only 12mp sensors. Nothing more was needed he he

Nothing more IS needed.

Wrong.

Maybe you think thats good enough for you, but who gave you the right to speak for others?

But you think you can do so? Say no more.

Get real! You are chasing a bait the industry is holding out of your reach - just - to get your money.

Yeah right, sorry but not everybody is taking pics of their cat to upload to facebook.

Amazingly, Six MP pics were used for high-gloss mag covers, big placards and everything else and these pics still are gorgeous. I only can repeat it: get real.

Same is true for film. Sports were shot with it, landscapes etc. Why are we not still using film. Why not 2 MPi? Why not 4. One point: 16 MP is not enough to get the best out of an A2 or A2+ printer, like the Epson 3800-series. You indeed need more MPixels for that (and I think more than 24 MPixels too).

Well, this is like saying if you don't want to make the jump from the Lamborghini Diablo to the Bugatti Veyron, why are you driving a car instead of a horse carriage. That's just rethoric but nothing else.

Oly's 16mp sensor is a great improvement to the 12mp sensor they recycled over and over again, but compared to the current competition it's just not good enough anymore.

The improvement wasn't the MP count but other features such as the better high-ISO performance. 16 MP is absolutely good enough and with the high-res mode that already has been announced to be usable handheld, in the E-M1 MKII, a 30-MP sensor is even more absurd.

So Mediumfromat, Nikon D810...all absurd. 60 Mp. 50, 36....80 Mp. And now you start talking about 40 Mp Oly. How come you are talking about that at all in any positive way. Why should someone not want 30 MP (who ever said that umber in this thread btw..;-)), but ike a 40 MP sensor that even handheld is stilll restricted in use?

If it ain't needed, does it matter in what form we get it???

There certainly are special applications where higher MP number are necessary. More often then not when a customer asks for high-MP pics. So, for these cases, you've got the middle format cameras, the high-MP 36mm cams of CaNikon - and the high-res-mode. 99.8 percent of those taking pictures just don't need this. It's just waist of money and resources. You just don't see the difference in you usual photography if you don't go pixel peeping or measurberating. Nonetheless, the high-res mode is a cool trick. You haven't to use it but you can say: I could shoot 64MP raws if I wanted to. Very cool if you want to impress you neighbour. And perfect as you haven't to spend hundreds or thousands of bucks for upgrading your entire infrastructure.

When I can buy a 28mp mirrorless aps-c with better image quality, a sensor with almost half the resolution and worse high iso just doesn't cut it anymore.

Well, IQ always is a sum of several factors and to be honest, I haven't seen any NX1 pictures (not low-light) that couldn't have been shot at least as well with one of the crurrent µFT cameras. In addition, µFT is lens-wise so clearly ahead that Samsung will have to try very very hard to catch up.
And the high-ISO performance is hampered not improved by more MPs.
By the way: What do you need this higher reslution for? For a 1.600 x 0.900 metre poster you look at from a 10cm distance? Your'e caught in the net of the industry's marketing and don't realise what happened.
And the particularly regrettable factor: the more people act and argue like you, the more the µFT manufacturers will be forced to increase the MP count indeed. With the result of no better pics at all - but every purchaser of new cameras being forced to buy a new hard drive, new software, new processors and so on and - of course - a new K4 screen to be able to detect the 'improvement' provided by the new sensor.
All this makes me really sick. How can adult people be so gullible?

The samsung is the superior sensor, only very high ISO with very dark shades indeed perform less than a D7200 especially but it does perform better in high ISo with good light. I would say th eformer is more important than the latter samsung lenses are fine, very nice. May be not exactly as good as mFT but close. Main objection with them is size of the best ones. at least to me. But the multitude of panasonic and Oly lenses are to be found in the sub 100 mm category. Many lenses there are double or exchangable. Like 25 mm, 42,5 or 45 mm, 15 or 17 or 20 mm. 12-35 anny 12-40 Oly. The line up is not well thought out, focussing on primes so much. samsung and Fuji understand this better.

Say no more... In FT land, they were blamed for offering too many zooms, now it's for offering too many primes. This is ridiculous.

There is so much wrong with your way of thinking I don't even know what to say but just imagine this: If nobody would buy any cameras anymore because they'd all think what they have is good enough, there would also not be anymore cameras/features/improvements because every camera manufacturer would go out of business...

There are so many other things that still can and should be improved in cameras - such as AF performance, JPEG engines or the High-ISO performance mentioned by you and far more. The MP count, however, definitely doesn't need any improvement.

For you, Market is moving on and tells us all the market wants something different. and this simply means we will get it. Oly HR mode was not introduced for fun

Wrong. The marketing has realised that a new round of the pixel race is the easiest way to make people believe that their current gear is not good enough anymore. And with people like you following their bait uncritically, Olympus will be forced to once again increase the MP count although nearly nobody needs it. Thank you very much.

 

[junk1]

Your 40MP image proves nothing...it's not a 40MP sensor, it is multiple 16MP images.

If anything, it proves the 16MP image is not tack sharp, since the downsampled 40MP image is a tad better. Your test actuality disproves your theory that current lenses are good enough one could argue.

And I haven't seen anything yet proving how good those sensor shifted 40MP images are. I doubt they are truly ~3x higher res than 16MP. In other words, if a 40MP sensor were to come out tomorrow and we compared it the sensor shifted image, it means nothing without a "known good" to compare against, or some objective measurement system (a good resolution test chart I suppose).

 

[Jim Salvas]

I'd like to see Olympus take the route of Nikon and Sony in providing distinct higher resolution and higher DR/lower resolution models. It would be nice to choose between an Olympus 12mp model with very high DR/high ISO capability and a 20-24mp model with modest DR, but good base ISO capability.

Frankly, I find myself wishing for the high DR more.

 

[junk1]

Hopefully next gen sensors will be BSI, so the added pixels will block/waste less light (the electronics will use less area, leaving more for the image gathering areas in other words).

Next gen camera won't sell if they are slow, so more pixels requires faster CPUs, memory; etc. I'd rather pay less instead of having more pixels, or spend the R&D on much faster electronic and mechanical shutters, and a high speed video mode.

 

[cainn24]

I don't agree that you've proven that.

If you are unable to recognize the evidence for what it is because you can't see what others can see then that's simply an issue on your end and not an invalidation of my results.

Case in point:


Standard 16MP capture left, 40MP capture downsampled to 16MP right

Click on "original size". Make sure whatever browser you are using is giving you a 100% view. If the crop on the right doesn't look more detailed to you then the problem is not with my test, it's with your ability to discern a difference that others can see (might be your eyes, might be your display device, might be something else).

In any case if you really can't see the difference then the difference is obviously irrelevant to you. And again, that's fine.

Your other thread (the downsampled 40MP image) you pointed to (I think it was you anyhow!) doesn't prove it either...if anything, it disproves it because it proves the 16MP image is a tad softer than the downsampled image (which of course is 8 16MP images, not 40MP taken all at once, so that doe snot require a 40MP lens).

So I guess you can see it, in which case I'm not sure what your issue is.

Anyway, of course the 16MP image is softer than the downsampled image. The downsampled image was produced using the higher resolution output. The whole point here is that an obvious difference remains even after downsampling. I did it this way because I'm not really interested in 40MP images; I'm more interested in better 16MP images. And that's one of the things that more resolution can do for you.

 

[junk1]

I think 95% of us would be happy with more pixels IF each pixel is at least as good as what we have now...which manufacturers realize. I doubt they'll take a step backwards on a per pixel basis, unless marketing forces them to.

 

[junk1]

Yep, I viewed 100% and there is a slight difference..of course there is. 40MP is created from 8 shifted 16MP images, which therefore only requires "16 MP fidelity".

If you had a 40MP sensor, then you would be proving that the lens, focusing, and other factors are all better than 16MP requires, and therefore a 20MP sensor would also be better than 16MP...

But using a sensor shifted image proves nothing, except that the 16MP image is not as good as it could be due to lens and sensor noise limitations most likely, and increasing the sensor to 20MP would show even more so that the lens isn't up to the task.

 

[cainn24]

Your 40MP image proves nothing...it's not a 40MP sensor, it is multiple 16MP images.

I don't think you understand how it works. It's basically a pretty good simulation of exactly what would happen if you put a higher resolution sensor in a MFT body.

I suggest you read this: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiTECH2.HTM

And this: http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...6mp-four-thirds-camera-best-a-36mp-full-frame