The caveat there is that you photograph a still life of a non-moving subject (possibly redundant, but necessary for clarity) and use Olympus's special high resolution mode that moves the sensor around and makes multiple exposures, then merges them into a super-high res file. With the OM-D E-M1 Mark II the jpegs have 8160 x 6120 pixels. At a typical lab standard of 240 PPI, an un-cropped image can be printed at 34 by 25.5 inches without any re-sampling. Most of us lab folk know that that can make a 68x51 inch print with NO PROBLEMS.

You and I and everybody else who owns a camera are a bunch of dreamers. The best analogy for this question is a golfing fact. If you could just afford the next level of golf clubs your handicap will go down by 10 points. That is B.S. It's not the golf club it's the golfer. I went through 3 levels of clubs hoping to reach a 10 handicap. My handicap never changed in the process. I'm still a 19 handicap. The only thing that changed was the cost of the clubs. It's the same in photography. If I could just have a gazillion pixels I'd be a better photographer. Again B.S. Some of the best prints I have on my walls were shot with a D700 with 12.1 MP's. I though that my photographs would improve if I just had a D800, then a D810, Then a Leica SL. I have found that I am no better now than I was with the D700. I really am sad about how stupid I was to trade my D700. You cannot buy better images. And all along I was working with a great mentor who to this day uses a 12 MP Canon and he just gets better and better. Thousands of dollars later I am just getting samer and samer. Where you are now...just STOP. Stop dreaming, stop buying, stop wishing and stop writing about this drivel. Just shoot and shoot and shoot. It's not the camera, it's the photographer.

Is more always better? Aren't we Americans prone to super size too often in search of the good life? How many huge lens, big cameras, full frame sensors, huge raw files produced by tons of megapixels do the great majority of photographers (pro and otherwise) really need to produce excellent photographs for publication online and in prints smaller than billboards? The Fuji X-T2 micro four thirds would seem a great choice for the vast majority of photographers, combining terrific quality and value. An even better choice for combined value and quality with fewer megapixels but with features covering a greater range of photographic situations would be the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II and its versatile pro quality 12-100mm lens. What do you think?