OK, maybe the science isn't quite as horrible as Tom's lead me to believe. I read through the link posted by Drizzt321 and still think the images provided have a very skewed control. We could rename the paper:
"UCSD Discovers Using Higher Pixel Density Results in Pictures with Greater Detail"
Read through it, what I took away from it is that they created a 12mm lens (what is the effective image circle?) much smaller than the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye - definitely an impressive feat. However the article talks about 5MP sensors (what size are said sensors?) with an unknown pixel pitch being used with this lens. The graphic and caption read:
Advantages of a monocentric lens. Top: This image was captured with a conventional wide-angle lens, a Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR with a 12mm focal length. Middle: An inset of the image above. A close-up (right) of the man holding the board shows that this picture, taken with a conventional wide-angle camera with 12mm focal length, does not have very high resolution. Bottom: An image taken with a monocentric lens relayed onto a high-magnification digital microscope. This system did not include the fiber coupling developed by the researchers for their prototype camera, but the clarity of the detail shows the potential of using monocentric lenses to take images with both high resolution and a wide field of view.
So why is there no level playing field, say, each lens tested with the same sensor (or at least of the same pixel pitch), like shown in the test bench?:
I'm not knocking the fact that they have created a pretty impressive lens, especially considering its size (and also the apparent lack of chromatic aberation), but the picture shown, I feel, is extremely misleading and implies that the absolute most the 8-15mm can resolve is 22 MP (which I don't believe for a second).