However some people only read what they want to read
Frank,
I'm not sure if that is exactly true, but be realistic, if you post two images like this your going to get blow back and no disrespect meant but if you also put a camera companies logo on all of your photos your motives will be questioned, that's just a natural assumption and to continue the discussion saying yes you should sharpen an image to match, well sharpen it then you'll know.
Your also comparing a camera you've owned for a few hours next to a system you've worked with for years, so as you and most of us who understand digital know, it takes a while to learn each system and get the best out of it.
Regardless all of these comparisons are flawed, because unless you have a cosmetic contract how many people are hired to just shoot an eyeball. Something full length and cropped to a page size is a better real world comparison.
It is also comparing primes vs. zoom and if you process a lot of files in a lot of different converters you will see so many differences in the 645 format and 35mm format that depending on the time, day, hour, shot, processor, client, subject, light, iso one will always look better, sometimes fractionally sometimes miles apart.
These comparisons and conversations go all around the houses, until the conversation turns sour and finally gets blocked. (maybe that's the goal But this one kind of surprises me because rather than show a clear superiority of one format to the other, they are both very close.
These format discussions are interesting but rarely equate to logic or use in the real world. I have a friend that has a gig with a luxury fashion merchandiser, that runs monthly in every major glossy magazine, usually a large insert. This photographers portfolio is 65% Canon files, 30% film, though the client demands he shoot medium format because they have a contract with a studio and a tech firm that has medium format. He always complains, saying mf always looks to sharp so he brings his Canons to the shoot and shoots a few images of each setup for himself and the art director usually runs most of the Canon images, so a lot of this is down to visual taste, not scientific sharpness comparisons.
I think there is a lot of fear in the camera world of the 5d2 and even the new Sony because no longer are we comparing 15, 20, or 30 thousand dollar cameras next to $8,000 cameras but we're comparing them to what is essentially a $3,000 consumer camera and the results are almost too close to measure once the ink hits the paper. I also know from experience that now that the dslrs are in the 20+ mpx range, even photographers who have made the medium format investment find themselves going to the dslrs much more often than they ever thought for all the reasons you can imagine, but mostly because it is just easier to get the shot and in today's advertising world the expectations on how many setups how muchroi a client demands is very, very high.
Regardless, nobody needs any justification on what type of camera they use if it produces the results and their happy.
Still, this is like comparing a $100,000 farm tractor next to a $10,000 Toyota except in this case the Toyota pulls a plow very well and also takes the family to church on Sunday.