Thank you Alan, I indeed missed that. If the purpose of the test was to show resolution of pixel/area that's fine. Sensor to sensor. That's it, no more. I doesn't prove that the Nikon D3 is "close" to the P65+. So, what is going on here? Some reply posts before mine seemed to affirm otherwise, or to say: "The D3 is a just a hair from the P65+"
"Nice test Chris! I can't see 35,000.00 worth of improved quality in the P65 file, can you? The Nikon, to me, looks a little crisper actually" Jim
"I did a similar test, comparing my P30+ to my 1Ds3 and came to the exact conclusion: a tiny bit of difference, but nothing that would ever show in CMYK, and nothing that couldn't be corrected for, in a tiny contrast adjustment and USM in DPP. I purposely don't want to do this test with my P45+ and my 5D2, because I want to keep my Hasselblad. I just don't want to see the true reality."
"Well I am not surprised at all. The main difference or benefit you get, is more resolution, which is only important for larger prints. Perhaps some smaller DR and color advantages, but these are certainly not worth the price. "
Or maybe is a translation thing. English is not my native language.
You might have missed that both cameras are shooting through the same lens, from the same place. The D3 is only showing a "crop" of the P65 sensor area.