Hi,
Sorry for the tone of my reply! Anyway, I feel that these tests tell a lot about the some aspects of image quality. Personally, I am a bit interested in the Alpha 7r even if I probably will not buy one. Checking out tests is a great way of finding out about stuff. I like measured data, or raw files that I can evaluate my self. I have had a Hasselblad with a P45+ and five lenses for something like 5 months. I still don't know what I think. Buying stuff is an expensive way to find out.
Comparing the IQ180 image to the Alpha 7r is absurd. It is pretty obvious that the IQ180 produces much better detail. Comparing with 40MP back would be more interesting,but DPReview has no such images in the comparison tool.
Getting back to the Hasselblad/P45+, what I find is that the resolution advantage over my 24 MP DSLR is obvious, but I see little other benefit of the Hasselblad. Three of the lenses are really good and two are not so good. Sometimes the lenses that are not so good work amazingly well. My findings agree with Zeiss MTF curves even if I will not rule out that the MTF curves affect my judgement.
Best regards
Erik
Hello,
Think you didn't take my verbiage for what I meant. I agree that quantitative data is very relevant in some cases. Heck, I've made a life's career of quantitative analysis, as have you. And, I respect the data, though may question the utility of it from time to time. So I didn't mean to impugn their efforts. And their test shots seem just that; reliable, reproducible but likely a very small "n".
But I also didn't mean to address that topic at all. I just looked at the images myself and drew my own conclusion. Yours may agree, or not. In many cases, the selection process for what constitutes a "good picture" is qualitative in nature. Numbers do not sufficiently convey what I "see" sometimes. But that's a failure of the metric, not that, "it isn't there". I have come to accept my lying eyes...