There are two bits to it. One is that we may have different preferences on sharpening. I felt that yours is a bit over the edge. I have tested both your sharpening and Paul's. I am quite happy with Paul's settings in LR, but sharpening image in FM may go over the edge. FM can choose different settings, of course.
It's good to have found out that the deficiency Eric, Synn and Jerome and some others have found seems to be lack of sharpening. I can look more into that, a good learning experience.
The other point is that any improved sharpening I can also apply to the DSLR image, so the difference will still be small. I actually tested using Capture One this time but didn't go to print, as colour from the two cameras was much different in C1. In LR both cameras gave essentially identical colour, with the same WB. I guess it is due to my DCP profile for the P45+.
I would also make a point on "MP" both Ken R and Jerome makes the point that about twice the resolution is needed for a significant difference in print. It happened in this case as the DSLR was cropped down to 20MP and the P45+ image was stitched from two images and was 40 MP after cropping. The subject didn't fit within the FOV of the 120 lens and I could not move back.
Jerome and Synn say that bad light doesn't work well with MF. This was heavy overcast with very lush greens. I don't really like the idea of a camera that doesn't work in the forrest under overcast conditions. That is stuff I like to shoot! Jerome and Synn perhaps suggest acceptable light is light overcast with some hazed sunlight?
As I also said several times the prints are very similar when viewed with the naked eye, but a 5.5x loupe shows a very significant advantage for the P45+. So the differences are carried over to the print.
Eyesight is involved of course. Young eyes may see a difference although elderly may not. I have tested with a somewhat younger friend experienced in the area. I guess that you need experienced observers, as the DoF in the MF image is quite thin, making most parts of the image being sharper.
A bit of a side note, someone mentioned that a technical camera with the best wide angles doesn't need sharpening. I have seen that in Doug Peterson's library images. Those images were very sharp even without sharpening. Combination of very sharp lens and no OLP filtering. Really Right Stuff.
I absolutely agree with JV-s point. Shooting opportunities like travel are probably a better spending than a MFD equipment if printed reasonably small.
This is what I found.
I guess it's time for me to end this thread. I will not lock it, comments are welcome. But I feel the issue has been explored to enough depth.
The point of posting sharpened and non sharpened versions was to show that there's a lot more that can be done with erik's files than his conversions have shown so far. The point is also that when processed properly, prints from 39MP MFD files do look better than with a 24MP DSLR. Sharpness is only one part of the equation and this can be done to taste.
so is WB for that matter. Yellow grass or green, the points still stand.
Erik, all I hope to achieve with that demo is to make you open your eyes a bit and realize that MFD is capable of delivering much better results than what you have managed to get out of the files so far. Perhaps this will make you stop generalizing every possible scenario for comparing MFD and 35mm based on your suboptimal workflow. What I fail to understand is that you are interested in objective analysis, but when shown a better workflow, you stick to personal preferences that most certainly adds bias and user error to the equation. It's absolutely fine for an artist to say "I like to work this way even if it won't deliver the best results". But for someone who is painstakingly testing technical quality, that argument does not fly.
I do agree with Jerome though, the lighting in the scene is suboptimal. The solution is not to shoot a test chart, but just to shoot real life scenes in better light. It helps one develop as a photographer too.