First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their comments on the article.
Second, I would like to clarify a few points, that hopefully will answer some of the questions posed.
Let me quote directly from the article:" To the naked eye, at normal viewing distances, the M9 24x30 inch prints appear to be in the same general resolution league as the S2 and the P65+. "
Please note the operating words here: "AT NORMAL VIEWING DISTANCES", "APPEAR" (not are), "SAME GENERAL RESOLUTION LEAGUE".
In other words, not with your nose up against the print. Please note that I never said that IMAGE QUALITY was even close. I am talking here about APPARENT RESOLUTION only. I am also not saying that the M9 matches the others, all I am saying is that it appears to be in the same resolution league.
In all the sentences above I am referring to APPARENT RESOLUTION ONLY, not dynamic range, not color, not micro-dynamics, not anything else.
Also, here is a second quote from the article: "Leica has done an admirable job with the contrast, accutance and resolution of the M9 to give the eye the impression of such high resolution".
The operating words here are "TO GIVE THE EYE THE IMPRESSION".
I think this answers the resolution question, but I also want to mention that I specifically said in my methodology that I am talking about how the M9 images come out of Lightroom with no adjustments, and how the MF images come out of RAW conversion with no adjustments.
Here is the more important thing:
There are a myriad of factors that determine image quality. And Medium Format has an inherent advantage in many of them versus smaller DSLRs.
First of all, more megapixels and no AA filters, therefore more resolution. Even if it is subtle, it is always there.
Second, dynamic range. I have heard many protests about how the DxO tests indicate that dynamic range is the same for small format pro DSLR's versus MF back. Well, that is simply not the case. The DxO numbers are based on the number of F/stops between sensor saturation on the high end and signal equals noise on the low end. This is important information, but it does not tell you the true VISUAL dynamic range of a system. A crude analogy would be someone telling you the horsepower of two cars. Assume that you have two cars and each one has a 250 horsepower engine. Are they then automatically equal accelerating from zero to 100 Km/h?
Of course not! Why? because one is a sedan with a diesel engine, and the other one is an exotic ultralight with an aluminum composite engine that red lines at 9,500 RPM.
(yes, I am exaggerating here to make the example more poignant).
So, the DxO information is very useful, but not complete. Medium Format sensors have a totally different noise signature from smaller sensors. CCD's have a different noise signature from CMOS, the wiring in the chips is different, the physical construction of the photo sites is different, the anti-blooming mechanisms are different, etc.
The noise signature and the structure of larger MF sensors allows for better extraction of information in the shadows. MF sensors deliver more visual detail in the shadows and therefore a wider dynamic range (the definition of dynamic range being visible detail with full texture). I would encourage anyone that doubts this to make their own tests.
Richness of color and micro dynamics: I used to own a P45+. The first time I tried a P65+ I was blown away. It was not the resolution difference. It was something else. I quickly discovered that it was the richness of color. The best way to describe it is as follows: If I took a picture of a leaf with the P45+, and it delivered, say 12 different types of greens, it looked like the P65+ delivered 100. I do not know how else to describe this, and trying to measure it would probably require serious work and instrumentation, but the visual impression was definitely there.
This is an area where to my eyes MF eats the smaller cameras alive. The richness of the color palette and the differentiation between subtle changes of color is far superior with larger sensors. Same thing with micro-dynamics. The subtle tonal gradations are much finer with MF.
And there are still many other factors relating to noise, relating to color accuracy, relating to lenses, relating to sensor positioning and focusing tolerances and many more. While the differences in any one factor may be subtle, by the time you pile all the differences on top of one another, you end up with a quite substantial difference.
This is not unlike the days of film, where even putting sharpness aside, large format film delivered a much richer image. The impact of an 8x10 inch contact print was immediate versus an enlarged 35 mm original, even if one could argue that the 35 mm original was "in the same general sharpness league" at that size. I think the vast majority of people would agree that an 8x10 contact print looks much better than an enlarged 35 mm print.
So, not to beat a dead horse, to my eyes, in real prints, MF images look significantly better than those captured with smaller cameras.
