Peter van den Hamer
I don't quite get your point. My article doesn't provide a reason why medium-format cameras (or digital backs) don't score too well.
Yes but IF science theory have too many exception - may be we have something wrong with theory AND/OR with experimental data and methods we collect it.
Тevertheless i appreciate much your detailed explanation in this article on LuLa and this forum thread.
The GretagMacbeth color chart is a workable choice for such a "handful of colors". Agree?
Disagree. I don't clearly understand usefulness of this "handul colors" 'cause it suited only for photographer who shoot gretag macbeth target, 'cause all printed colors gamut (even with best printed technologies we have now) is much much tighter than real world. Also we have flat patches and test chart shot says nothing about subtle chromatic definitions between different lengths of light-waves.
Origin of skepticism is located in practical experience - i saw many files from cameras listed in dxo's rating on colour accuracy bad - it has better colors - especially subtle tones of colour than files from cameras with better dxo'x rating in this.
And i see, for practical purposes, dxo's rating says anything meaning only for shooting black and white photojournalist style.
Or for selling in photostocks, where technicians and mad for silky-smooth textures and pop poster colors (but you can always do smooth and pop - simply killing grain, detail and subtones and cannot make vive-versa in post-processing).
(it remembers me still debated topics about fuji vs kodak slide film quality - because lesser grain and better MTF doesn't automatically count as better image and bigger saturation doesn't always mean better colours tones - varieties of subtle chroma variations - things which makes image volume and authentic)
I almost agree with other your points.