reverendray

As posted here, both directly and implied, you first need to ask "why do you wish to upgrade?" In my personal case I did just that and found that the upgrade from a D810 to a D850, when I looked at resolution and dynamic range they was not enough difference to make it meaningful in terms of print quality. I have sold prints as large and 20x30 and they have been very acceptable by the purchasers. I may upgrade to a better 20mm lens as I do a lot of landscapes and the 20mm D lens is an older one and there are not sharper lenses out.

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

Thanks for your reply.

BebuLamar

You should be able to determine for yourself if the 4MP is worth the investment. Nobody else can do that on your money.

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

I was seeking advice, not a decision. Can't you understand the difference?

Boris77

OK. NO!! Boris

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Sorry to be getting back to you, UserID, and Urnst so late but I had to be off line a while.

I understand stand the point that you and UserID were trying to make and I stand corrected about the difference between increased megapixels and increased resolution. The difference is 11.8% in resolution for a 16mp to 20 mp increase. The question is in your minds that that is not enough. For me that would be enough. Yes, there will be even bigger increases in future 4/3rds cameras. Panasonic has already moved from 20mp to 25mp (still only a 12% increase in resolution). That is a 25% increase in resolution if Urnst was going from 16mp to 25mp (Panasonic GH6). But it is a less sophisticated 25mp sensor than the new 20mp sensor in the new OMDS OM-1 (the 20 mp sensor has 2 stops more in ISO and more dynamic range). OMDS is talking future sensors of 32mp and 41mp (although I would like to see an increase to 25mp with the new sensor too). I know of no photographer that does not want an increase in both megapixels and resolution.

I understand your thinking of 11.8% in resolution as marginal. But if we look at what is available, it is not that bad. The most popular size sensor in full frame is 24mp. The next size up is 26mp (4% increased resolution; definitely not worth it). The next major size up, including a much higher price, is 33mp (17% increase in resolution). The next size up from that is 45mp (37% increase in resolution; if you have to ask the price, you really cannot afford it. Definitely more than $700.)

Again, for me, $700 is not a bad price to jump from 16mp to 20mp (and provides a second body). And the future will even offer higher megapixels and resolution - and of course at a higher price.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

In my opinion, the second body is a stronger reason than the resolution.

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

Thanks for your reply.

lukevaliant Loc: gloucester city,n. j.

jcboy3

The E-M1.2 is a big improvement over the E-M1.1. And it has more AF points and much better auto focus, especially continous. And it has much faster sensor readout (1/60 s vs 1/15 s)

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I cannot disagree with that opinion. I am in total agreement. This is why this time my wife will be using be getting my hand-me-down "backup" E-M1 mkII. My grandkids will not be getting this one. The E-M1 mkII will be "available" if need be - if I can pry it out of her hands. But I still have the opinion that the 16mp to 20mp is not that marginal an increase in megapixels or resolution. Both together, the second body and increase, would be enough for me to spend $700 if I was in Urnst's place.

anotherview Loc: California

Ditto: "If you are happy with the old one, stay with it."

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

Thanks for your reply.