rick422a

I'm deciding between 16 MP MFT ( Lumix GX 85 or Oly M10iii) and APSC C ( Sony A6000). The samples at DP review and Imaging resource, show Sony jpeg to be sharper than the MFT. But in RAW the differences appear to be very minimal. All three cameras are about the same price, and extra lenses similar in price and size.
If sharpness is my primary goal, will 16MP RAW really be comparable to 24MP APSC RAW ? The largest prints I'll be making will be 11 x14. I don't trust my aging eyes to make the decision based on what I can see on the computer monitor.thanks.

khorinek

If all things being equal except MP, go with the higher Mp. You will have more to work with in post editing.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

The 24 megapixel APS-C sensor will more than likely produce higher quality images than the 16 megapixel four thirds sensor.
The APS-C camera is offering more pixels on a larger image sensor. If the Sony image processor is as good or better than the others and the size and weight of the four thirds camera system are not a factor, get the Sony. As for minimal differences in RAW, RAW is not an image format, it is data that has not had any image processing parameters applied to it. The image you see from the RAW file is actually a default generic JPEG thumbnail that is embedded in the RAW data for viewing purposes. Until the RAW data is processed, you don't really know what the resulting image will look like.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"I'm deciding between 16 MP MFT ( Lumix GX 85 or Oly M10iii) and APSC C ( Sony A6000). The samples at DP review and Imaging resource, show Sony jpeg to be sharper than the MFT. But in RAW the differences appear to be very minimal. All three cameras are about the same price, and extra lenses similar in price and size.
If sharpness is my primary goal, will 16MP RAW really be comparable to 24MP APSC RAW ? The largest prints I'll be making will be 11 x14. I don't trust my aging eyes to make the decision based on what I can see on the computer monitor.thanks."

Basics first, sharpness depends more on the operator than the camera or lens. Selecting a camera is a very personal decision based on what we need from the camera like a good AF or better colors just to mention some of the parameters we could need in our photography. It is said that more megapixels is better. Use a D700 or a D3 with only 12 megapixels and enlarge to 20x30 inches and then get back to me with your comments.

Do not expect to see a significant difference between 16 and 24 megapixels IF the sensor is of equal size. The a6000 has an APS sensor while the Olympus and Panasonic have a smaller micro four thirds sensor. All three cameras are capable with good optics of producing excellent files.

My recommendations is that you hold and if possible use the three cameras to determine which one fits your hands and needs better.

ELNikkor

Those MFT cameras are more than adequate for making grainless, sharp 11x14's! If you could hold, shoot a bit, see how easy the menus are, just the aesthetics of the camera/lenses themselves without the pixel-peeping nonsense obsessive people fuss over, perhaps one of those 3 fine cameras will speak to you and say, "It just FEELS right, buy me, buy me!"

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The amount of noise that the cameras produce will be a factor in determining how much sharpening can be applied to the images. Sonys have a better reputation for low noise than any of the m4/3 manufacturers. The others aren't bad - just not so good. And not only will 24MP help with sharpness when printing large prints, it'll also give more options where cropping is concerned.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I have the Olympus e-m5 Mark II which also has 16mp. I shot a profile of a cheetah from 70 yards away with my Oly 75-300. You could count the hairs on its head.

Mncarpenter

Google any of the Olympus visionaries, Robin Wong uses a 16mp MFT-hard to argue with the photo quality

n4jee Loc: New Bern, NC

An 11x14 at 300 dpi requires 13,860,000 pixels. The difference between 16 and 24 MP is how much you can crop your original image.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

You know how many times I have found a situation where all things were equal? None. Not a single one. Usually when I hear or read "all things being equal" my doubt meter gets triggered. Especially when it involves a complex system, like a camera. Cameras have so many variables at play that it is nearly impossible to make practical use of the concept.

Dan Mc Loc: NM

Lou Rockwell insists that no one needs anything more than 8 MP....he shoots .jpgs on a Nikon D40 and says he can blow them up with excellent clarity large enough to cover a garage door!!

I have used a D40 and D7100 and the D40 pics may be just a bit better, really! (Camera set to Auto on both)

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

All three are very capable of excellent 11x14 prints. I agree that more important is to see how the cameras handle. Personally I have used the G85 and it’s one of my favorite cameras to shoot with. The only thing I’ve enjoyed more is my G9. It shoots great video too.

Bill P

The differences you see on DPR are probably the results of different cameras setting for in camera sharpening. Raw will look softer unprocessed, but that's what post is for. The difference between 16 and 24mp is minimal. 16 will make great 11x14's.

If your concern is for max. sharpness, and you can't trust your eyes, you probably need a new hobby.

Dossile

I bought a Panasonic GX9 which has 24 MP and a similar sensor to a G9 with a price and smaller body similar to the GX85. I am uncertain why you would choose a GX85 (16 MP) over a GX9 (24 MP). The cost difference is marginal. The pictures captured so far in RAW are great, the battery life better than expected and the handling with my very large hands, comfortable. Is there something that I don’t know about the two cameras? I generally shoot with the screen, but the viewfinder works great too.