>>3531521I did
>>3531515 and while the Olympus is not as sharp in JPEG as in RAW, it's still slightly sharper than the Sony (also in JPEG).
It actually looks like DPReview left some default sharpening on when shooting the Sony JPEG because it looks sharper than the RAW Sony, and that shouldn't be, at least not when using ACR. ACR can render a sharper, more detailed image from RAW than any camera's built in JPEG converter.
You're pixel peeping and therefore comparing Oly/Sony at different view sizes. Of course the bigger enlargement is going to come off as softer sitting next to the smaller one. Scale the Sony up or the Oly down to compare sharpness. If you want to know how sensors compare don't compare JPEGs, and don't compare 1:1. Compare RAWs and compare at the same view size.
BTW, I'm actually a FF fag. High rez FF at that. You nitpicking Olympus files makes me laugh because 50mp ISO 12,800 is sharper and more detailed than the A7IIs is at ANY ISO. The A7s bodies aren't meant to be killer stills cameras, they're meant to be killer low light video cameras. Even then 12mp is enough for decent prints when you're not jerking yourself in a forum trying to insult users of another brand.
Olympus makes great cameras and m43 has its advantages/disadvantages like every format. At the end of the day pretty much anything sold today can make good prints at common sizes.
>the one you have with you 