It was nice of you to chime in, but I was actually more aiming at the representatives whose products are at stake here: Hasselblad and Phase One (just let's forget about the Mamiya input since anyone can see that the unit is defective). David Grover complained that he needed RAW files. Now that these are available I would like to hear his further comments. Also, if there is something to say about the bad artifacts of the Phase One back I would like to hear someone knowledgeable to provide some antidote. In the Polish comparison Steve Hendrix hastened to say that Phase One had nothing to do with it, but now that Phase has something to do with the other comparison and leaves a very bad impression we don't hear from him anymore. Sometimes the MF threads here on LL seem to be completely salesmen driven, but when some rational comments from them would be wished for (as in this case) they keep silent. It's what some governments do as well: just refrain from any comments and everything will blow over one day. I wish Michael would make a separate sales representatives corner where we all could go if we needed them, but that the other threads would be kept clean from their littering. At least they wouldn't have to excuse themselves for not showing up in threads like these.
Well, my only interest was in clarifying whether Phase One was part of the test or not. In one of the tests, there was a Mamiya ZD, which was referred to as Mamiya AFDIII, and some assumed it was matched with a Phase One back. That's really my only interest. The reason that is so is because if I sell someone a product that I believe offers superior image quality, I would not prove it by a 1 shot example, especially without raw files. As far as the file itself goes, I pulled the raws into Capture One and I see nothing to criticize, except that I think that 80mm HC lens has been dropped because the right side is significantly softer than the left. I'm referring to files CF015369 and CF015371.
To be clear, I have never criticized image quality from 35mm DSLR's. I've shot with them enough myself, and many (in fact most) of my medium format customers also shoot 35mm on occasion, so I know what they are capable of and they are very good and certainly offer good bang for the buck. I would also say that over the course of many jobs with different subject matter, lighting situations, and post capture treatment, there is no question medium format provides superior quality (except for high ISO, of course, but even then it depends on which DB). That said, in many situations 35mm is quite close and obviously the majority of the market think it's close enough, and also the price is right.
Despite that, most photographers who shoot medium format digital do not wish to part with their MF cameras and shoot exclusively 35mm. They do wish medium format would step up its evolution (and I have the same hope), but generally they are not willing to accept the lower, though acceptable, quality of 35mm and they value the positive aspects of shooting medium format above and beyond image quality - large bright viewfinders, film shooting options, technical or view camera options, high-performance lenses, optimized tethered workflow, and so on.
I've done the same type of comparison tests between 35mm and medium format. Often the results are pretty close, as in these posted tests. Sometimes, 35mm is significantly lacking. I've had these results pointed out to me by my customers as well. So, yeah, it's one shot and one type of shot, and the Sony seems to hold up pretty well in this shot (without looking at the Sony raws). But it doesn't convince me that over many jobs, the P30 is not going to be superior in nearly all if not all of them.