I just stumbled over an interesting article: About Photography: An unfair comparison? -- the Fuji X-E2 vs the Sony A7r First let me add that this is not about Sony vs. Fuji or FF vs. APS-C or anything of that sort but simply a more or less meaningful comparison between 16 & 36 MP. The same could be done with Sony vs. Nikon or Ricoh or ... Sony vs. Sony. For some reason the author forgot to mention the native linear resolutions of those sensors (Bayer vs. X-Trans notwithstanding, both cameras lack an AA filter) (He didn't mention DR, color dynamics, tonality, hi-ISO performance and other factors like crop reserves either, this article deals primarily with linear resolution.) Here the A7r has ~23% (x-axis: 6000/4896=1.225) or slightly less than one fourth more pixels ~ theoretically higher resolution than the X-E2 (or any other 16MP 3:2 sensor). ~23% - no more - even with the best or theoretical glass. (Calculated the other way around: 4896/6000=0,816, the 16MP sensor has 81,6% or only ~18% less pixels on the X-axis, it's almost exactly the same relation on the vertical dimension. Only 18%, less than one fifth less.) It goes without saying that the native resolution of those sensors isn't matched by too many available lenses, especially wide open or in the corners, especially on FF. Now add less than perfect shooting technique (handheld vs. tripod), technical issues (shutter shock on the 7r or mirror slap on a DSLR) and OTOH the possibilites we have in PP and it gets clear what the author of that article is trying to point at. I could easily afford about any mass-produced Megapixel monster out there but so far haven't felt the need for anything beyond 24MP, but rather feel like maxing out the stuff I already have. How about you? I feel like playing another round of "What camera has this image been shot with?"