Years ago, the old Sony Mavica FD-91 had a 14x zoom which was the equivalent of about 518mm in 35mm. (The FD-91 was alsothe first digital still camera to have image stabilization.) but it was only around .8Mp...UNDER 1 Mp.
In those days (when cameras were just beginning to appear with 3Mp sensors but only 3x zoom), people were asking the same question. Does the huge optical zoom of the FD-91 compensate for the low resolution or does the extra resolution of the newer (3Mp) cameras make up for their limited zoom?
To answer the question definitively, two Mavica users developed the "Figure of Merit" calculation.
http://www.mav-magazine.com/Jun2000/FigureofMerit/
It provides a (huge) number that can provide an objective comparison between cameras with different size and resolution sensors AND different zooms.
The FoM figure for the standard Sony V3 is about 131 Billion (130,912,616,448
The FoM for the old FD-91 was 211 Billion (211,018,579,968 which beats the 7Mp V3!!!
If ypu add the 1.7x telephoto lens to the V3, the FoM jumps to 378 Billion (378,337,461,535) which passes the FD-91's 14x zoom!
BUT...
The FoM for the standard C-765 is 566 Billion (565,622,886,400) which beats them all!
So, for maximum zoom shots, the Olympus will be able to put more pixels onto the scene than you are going to be able to get by zooming with the V3 and cropping!
However, that is ONLY for maximum zoomed shots. AS you back off the zoom, the V3 rapidly overtakes the C-765 just due to resolving power.
I know this has been a really technical discussion but it does serve to finally resolve the issue of pixels versus optical zoom.