Am I missing something here. People are saying the Pen F has 80mp, the OMD-EM-5II has 40mp and the OP has 50mp. I cannot find the OP on B & H's web site but they show the Pen F to have 20.3mp and the OMD-EM-5II to have 16mp. I knew the 80 and 40mp sounded to be too high and the Nikon D750 has 24mp, higher than both cameras.

YouveYou've already got 3 camera bodies, Instead of getting another body I would buy lenses.

Anyone who is truly a photographer, an artist, sees the difference as night and day. It's shooters who go out and buy expensive equipment and think it makes them good who don't.
It's the difference between a photograph and a snapshot and honestly is the biggest problem real photographers have selling their craft today; too many lack the training or the eye to see the difference between a quality photograph and a fuzzy snapshot.

Some prefer to shoot in rapid sequence. Some lack the experience, confidence or knowledge in the subject they are shooting. Some lack the skill to time the shot and rely on the best of the bunch from the rapid shooting. Also, you'd be surprised who out there calls themselves a pro and who is not. Many serious amateurs are better shooters than many pros are.
I have shot as a professional and as an amateur for my enjoyment and have seen the field of who is a professional photographer. Especially in publishing, the reporter is given a camera, barely knows how to use it, gets to the events with their press pass and is considered a professional photographer. Then they ask more experienced photographers to teach them how to shoot a good photo for the event they are covering. So,as you can see, just because one is called a professional photographer has no effect as to their abilities, experience or capabilities to use the equipment they are given to use.

And how did you see these prints? Were they printed and if so on what paper and on what printer and what ink was used? Did you see comparisons shots that were shot in raw? Did you see them on a computer, what screen, how big and viewed from what software? All these things makes a difference.

All I can tell you is that if they were done in raw and processed in raw, the final photo would have been superior from the raw file.

You claim many pros shooting sports, shoot in Jpeg; well just as many or more will shoot only raw. It depends a lot, who they are shooting for. If a newspaper, the quality in them is so poor it doesn't matter, so these guys may shoot in jpeg. Internet shooters may choose jpeg too. But the truth is that it is night and day when working a quality print in software later. One can do so much more in a raw file than a jpeg file.

Yes, jpeg allows more frames shot before the buffer is full but so much determines that too. I shoot with a D750 which is neither known for a large buffer or a fast frame per second rate, but by using San Disk Extreme Pro SD cards I can run off close to 20 frames in raw before the buffer fills and San Disk has an even faster card than the Extreme Pro.

And if you talk to most of the experienced pros you will find that they rely on their experience of the sport and knowing their equipment to use single framing shooting instead of rapid firing most of the time. Trying to sort through 20 shots or so for the perfect one. most of the time reveals that that perfect shot came in between two frames and their luck is better served by shooting the single frame.

It all come down to experience and what and who you are shooting for. The bottom line is that if you want the best quality photo you can get, then raw is the only way to go.

Avery:

I am not familiar with your camera (I shoot with Nikon cameras) but each camera has a maximum number of frames per second that it will shoot. Being a sports photographer myself I have found that no matter how many frames per second a camera will shoot, no matter what you do, the shot you want will always fall in between your shots.

The best way to get the shot you want (unless you are seeking a sequence of the act-then rapid fire is the way to go) is to know the sport well enough that you know what is coming before it happens and be in position for the shot. You have to know the lapse time of your camera and time the single frame for the shot you want. It takes practice but with time you will find that you can freeze a baseball on the bat, a basketball on the rim etc... All the great sports photographers get their shots that way. It won't get it every time but with experience ad practice you will get more and more often. Fire away, putting a shot on a flash card is free. In the olden days, we went through a lot of film and still never came close to shooting as many frames as we do today, so enjoy the advantage today's technology brings.

I am an electronic engineering technician, so I know electronics. I also have been doing photography for almost 50 years now. I brought this issue up to Popular photography several years ago and they researched it to confirm my evaluation of this subject.

Older flash units (the Vivitar 283 is the classic example) do trigger at much higher voltages than they do now and WILL burn out you DSLR and later film cameras. They might not do it right away because the duration of the voltage going to the camera is very short, so it may take multiple times to burn it out, but each time you fire it, you are slowly creating more damage to the camera and will eventually damage the electronics in the camera. There is no general rule here for what units will or will not work in a camera model. Each is different and needs to be researched.

Testing the voltage can be extremely dangerous because depending on the specs of the test equipment and how long the flash delivers the charge, one could get a totally false reading that does not show what is really being discharged. (To get a real proper reading from the flash you'd have to know the time it delivers the charge for and have an oscilloscope that will properly read the voltage amount and the time it is delivered.) The only safe way is to check with the manufactures of both the camera model and the manufacturer of the flash (will need model and serial numbers of each piece) and ask if they are compatible. (Some camera manufacturers refuse to comment on other manufacturers equipment, so this could be a serious block to get a true answer too.) If at all in doubt, don't use the older flash; it's not worth damaging the camera.

The newer cameras have so many new features to work with flash and the flashes themselves have so many newer features that it doesn't make sense to try to use an older flash anyways, and put with it the risk of damaging the camera, it only makes sense to get a newer flash for that newer camera.