And with that, let's bring the discussion back on topic--not that the important people feel like participating, it seems.
Since no clarification from the writers is forthcoming, I'll assume the worst for now and suppose they shrunk the images because no more detail could be seen at higher magnification.
Since the centre and corner crops of the Canon were taken from roughly the same location as the MF backs, I'll assume that FOV of the images were the same, so 100% crops from two cameras with the same MP count would have the same magnification.
So without further ado...
Comparing the P40+ crop and the 1Ds3 crop, supposing the 1Ds3 crop was 100%, then if the P40+ crop were 100%, the P40+ would be a 13.3MP camera. Ya think?
If the magnifications were the same, the P40+ would be a 21MP camera just like the Canon...
And finally, this is the size one would have expected the P40+ 100% crop to be if it's a 40MP camera and the FOV are the same.
And until I see a clarification from the people that matter, I'll suppose that's how the P40+ looks like at 100%.
(edit: P40+ crops resized using Photoshop standard bicubic (neither smoother nor sharper), for anyone who cares. The resizes were 125.6% to get up to 21MP size and 173.37% to get up to 40MP size. 13.3*(125.6%^2)=21MP, 13.3*(173.37%^2)=40MP)