I think anybody's critique would have a lot more validity if they didn't go after one brand or format and they would show some "photographs" that are relevant or informing.
Also in every large rental stage I work in, from New York, LA, Milan and Tokyo is a rarity if I don't see one of the world's premier photographers shooting on set with a medium format camera and back, with Phase being the predominate back.
I don't think everyone that uses medium format is wrong or has thrown away their medium cameras for a Nikon.
Anyway, pretty photographs are fun, charts make me sleepy and Fred is capable of taking pretty photos show them and really make a statement.
If I believed every chart, every spread sheet that comes my way, wall street would own my studios, my cars, my clothes my house and my dog.
See is believing.
But for the record I use a contax for digital because at the time the DF wasn't to the level it is today, the H system didn't have their complete integrated approach of camera to back and I'd heard rumblings of Phase and Hasselblad not getting along, so the Contax was the best option for me at the time.
Today who knows?
Doug says the old lenses are good and sure, they are, but the Contax doesn't autofocus as fast as the DF or the H4, that is one thing I've tested. It works, works good and once you learn it's nuances its accurate, but you gotta think about it.
I also find the Contax lenses sharp, usually a little over sharp and brittle and honestly never liked them for transparency film as they are very contrasty, though since digital is kind of broad and flat in the middle they work fine.
But let's also be honest about lenses. Anytime I see a "bad' lens is there usually was some problem in manufacturing or shipping. Any lens that costs more than a pair of converse sneakers is usually sharp and good.
It might have some distortion or fall off at the edges slightly but I don't mind that because I rarely have to worry about edge sharpness and distortion is a batch, easy software fix.
I haven't test every phase/mamiya lens but I doubt very seriously if in todays time a manufacturer that sells high definition still cameras would ship non sharp lenses.
I've got a lot of glass, PL mount RED's, Angenieux, Nikon mounts new, old, Nikon and Zeiss, a box of Canon lenses, some Leica glass even some Voigtlander. For my Contax I have all but the 300 and the zoom (mostly 2 of each) Pentax 6x7 lenses with convertors, Hasselblad lenses with convertors Hartblei with a Contax mount and all are different, in color, tone, look and sharpness and I wouldn't say the lease sharp one is bad, I'd just say it looks different.
This project of about 18 setups was shot with a old Hartblei 45mm tilt shift except one image that I shot with the Zeiss 80mm. (Zeiss on the left and old Hartblei on the right.)
For this project I didn't like the Zeiss lens as I think it's too sharp and too crisp it falls off quickly, but 99% of the world wouldn't pick the old model Hartblei because it's not that sharp and by most pixel examiners they probably wouldn't like it.
BTW: I've never shown these two photos side by side where anyone knew the difference . . . I did but I shot it and I thought there was a difference.
The thing is with digital as with film, every lens, every film (or digital) receptor, every lighting style produces a different effect and the only way I know what lens to pick is from using them.
I know photographers, DP's that swear over certain lenses. They're just completely sure that the Panavision lens toasts a Cooke, a Nikon is better than a Canon, anything Zeiss or Leica rocks and for them and they're 100% correct . . . but for the rest of the world, it's all personal choice.