you seem to working harder than necessary to prove an obvious advantage of larger formats.
I thought I was doing the opposite. I'm trying hard to find a 'real' advantage of the smaller format, apart from the obvious fact that smaller format cameras are, or can be, lighter and less bulky.
I'm still a bit uneasy about the way Michael has compared the F828 to the 10D. I get a sense of apples and oranges. There doesn't appear to be a level playing field. On the other hand, it might be (more likely
) I just don't understand the significance of his methodology.
When taking any photo, major considerations are; what angle of view? what depth of field? what shutter speed?
With modern digital cameras with adjustable ISO, selection of shutter speed is also going to be influenced by increased noise considerations. (Perhaps more than is necessary in my case, but that's another matter.)
When comparing two quite different cameras such as the F828 and 10D, in order to keep the playing field level and compare apples with apples, it seems to me that one should keep equivalent focal lengths (same angle of view), keep equivalent DoF (different f stops), and keep the shutter speed the same (different ISO settings).
Michael doesn't appear to have done any of this (at the camera level) in his comparisons. He seems to have used the same aperture for both images (f5.6) which ensures that the 10D image will have less DoF. He seems to have used a Canon lens at 200mm, which is the full frame 35mm equivalent focal length, not the 10D focal length equivalent, and by comparing the F828 at ISO 64 and/or ISO 100 with the 10D set at ISO 100, he's given the F828 simultaneously a shutter speed advantage and a noise disadvantage, which sort of confuses the issue.
If I were setting up these two cameras for comparison, I'd be comparing the F828 at 200mm and F5.6 (actually 50mm and f5.6) with the zoom on the 10D set at 120mm and f13. Or, I'd use f4 on the F828 and f9.5 on the 10D. This would ensure equal DoF for both images.
I would also set the F828 at ISO 100 and the 10D at ISO 400 to ensure equal shutter speeds, as well as ISO 64 and ISO 250 (if that were possible). Clearly, exact equivalence is not always possible.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for criticising Michael's methodology, let me say that his methodology appears to understate the performance of the F828, and this might be quite deliberate in order to deflect criticism.