The previous statement indicates tests and implied some kind of objectivity. In fact it was nothing but a marketing blurb enriched by sales incentives.
My statements are objective analysis. I can tell you it was raining more yesterday in midtown manhattan than it was today; I don't need to tell you the exact inches of rainfall for that to be an objectively true statement with extremely high confidence.
You probably meant the link did not contain
numerical analysis and you are correct that the link I provided did not include numerical analysis; I don't think numerical analysis is especially useful to the target audience of the article (99% of whom are photographers, not color science PHDs), and can even be misleading. For example, if camera X has a 10% lower average Delta E on a Color Checker SG that doesn't mean,
necessarily, that is has more accurate color in the context of a particular photographer's needs, especially if the test is made after generating a custom profile the main intention of which is to nail the colors of a Color Checker SG.
It's worth nothing that I'm in R+D, not sales, and have a fair bit of experience in numerical color evaluation having worked with numerous tier one museums and libraries on establishing metrics by which to measure their internal color accuracy and precision. See for example the
Phase One Color Guide for which I was a lead author, or our
Lighting Webinar during which I provide an overview on the scientific nature of light and color. So I don't agree with "marketing blurb enriched by sales incentive", but you are welcome to dismiss me as you wish. Should you wish to do your own testing we are glad to facilitate such a test by providing the relevant hardware, at no cost, in our test studios in NYC or LA; you can make the test as centered on targets, numerical analysis, or spectrophotometers as you like.
I 100% stand by my statement and elaborate it further: The Trichromatic produces more accurate color. The difference is most notable in traditionally problematic subject matter and is otherwise pretty minor. Whether that matters to a particular user (given the IQ3 100mp color was already very good), whether that is worth a particular price (and whether now is the right time to pay that price), those are not questions I feel in a position to address – that's for the user to decide. Notably better color accuracy does not guarantee that a given user will find the color more visually appealing; as an obvious example, very few films had "accurate" color, and some of the most beloved films of all time were very far from accurate. =
The bottom line is that when a client asks a question like this we prefer not to answer with test charts, numbers, or raw files. We prefer to answer by putting a camera (or both cameras if relevant) in their hands and tell them to go make their own tests. We may point them at some things to look for (as we've done testing under a wide variety of circumstances) to save them time, but it's really their call from there. We can't put a camera in a hand via text on a forum, and we know some people want to download files and play around before committing their time to their own testing, so we make some of our testing available for free download. Really the only downside is that some people will say hurtful things on the internet, and if I couldn't stomach that I would have left 3721 posts and 11 years ago.