There does seem, as expected, to be a bit of spin in favor of the Dalsa sensor, like the hand-waving argument that lens resolution limits prevent the Kodak sensor from giving any greater image resolution. (Lens resolution is not a brick wall, so even increasing sensor resolution significantly beyond a lens's 50% MTF resolution limit will continue to improve total system resolution.)
In particular, I would like to comment on these claims in section 2 "What does all the above really mean?"
2. c ...Comparing pixels of the same generation, the old rules are still valid, however: the bigger the pixel the better is light sensitivity and contrast/dynamic range. [claiming or implying an advantage for the Dalsa's 7.2 micron pixel pitch over the Kodak's 6.8 micron.]
2 e. Dalsa pixels have not only a larger surface; they are also thinner, i.e. they are less tall. As a consequence, they are better suited for wide-angle applications and photography with view cameras (movements). Incident light hitting a pixel in a flat angle will therefore produce less shadow if the pixels are less tall.
Unfortunately, both of these claims, based on generalities, seem contradicted by the specific facts from the spec. sheets, which show that Kodak's "narrower but deeper" photo-sites have greater well capacity and equally good off-perpendicular sensitivity.
A. The off-angle sensitivity is essentially equal, and very good in both cases:
the Dalsa and Kodak are both about 90% at 20º and a bit over 80% at 30º;
the Kodak graphs go further to 40º where it is still over 70% (about 1/2 stop fall-off).
B. The Kodak sensor has a well capacity of 60,000e compared to about 55,000e for the Dalsa, despite the larger photo-sites of the latter. This seems to be an advantage of deeper electron wells: greater volume for a given horizontal dimension. Indeed I have read that Kodak deliberately deepened the wells in recent sensors in order to increase well capacity to this 60,000e, compared to 40,000e in earlier FF CCD's of the same 6.8 micron pixel spacing.
(I get that 55,000e for the Dalsa by dividing the maximum (linear operation) output voltage by the charge to voltage conversion factor.)
Dynamic range depends on read noise levels too, but the only numbers I can find to compare for linear dynamic range are
Inconclusive, but certainly not evidence of the claimed Dalsa DR advantage.
Finally sensitivity. The 12% greater pixel area might give about a 12% gain if quantum efficiency were equal, but it is not:
Dalsa: Red 22% Green 15% Blue 15%
Kodak: Red 20% Green 23% Blue 18%
The Dalsa is better in red, but Kodak's QE is about 50% higher (23/15) in green and 20% higher (18/15) in blue.