As the evaluation of this comparison is obviously much the question of religious affiliation, I see the need to declare, that
1. I am a Canon 40D owner,
2. I don't care for the label on my camera (I carried my Zensa Bronica a decade long in a large Nikon bag, for that offered the best arrangement :-);
3. I don't intend to purchase any of the cameras involved in the test.
So, I am interested purely on the photographic/digital side of the comparison without any personal/emotional involvement.
I have several problems with the comparison.
1. I don't see, which Canon 85mm lens has been used. There are two of them, the 85mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.2L. I am afraid, that the 85mm f/1.8 has been used, which is a very good lens on a cropping camera, but it is ridiculous to put it on an FF, $7000 camera. The 85mm f/1.2L has a never version "for digital", and I don't believe, that the owner of the 1DsMkIII would put any other on his camera. Or, has the P45 been tested with a Coke bottle?
2. It is dishonest (though expectable between competitors) to present processed images. The processing (raw conversion) plays a huge role, and it is funny to say, "look, how bad the other image is, if I process it".
The raw images have to be presented, and let's see, who what can make out of them.
For a starter:
- the 1DsMkII image is much brighter than the P45, and the mid- to brighter areas (not only the highlights) are less contrasty. I adjusted a bit, and suddenly it looks very different , for example the structure of the stonework in the forground becomes visible, the "Visit" signe gets more clear
- the P45 image is strongly sharpened; in fact, it is over-sharpened for pixel peeping, while the 1DsMkII image is undersharpened (if at all).
So, put up those raws and see, what can be made out them (and where is is written in stone, that DPP has to be used, not another raw processor - since when is the raw processor part of the "system"?)