After reading/overlooking this whole unfortunately quite flamed thread I have a couple of things to say:
1. I don't understand the fuzz about the images displayed for comparison, as the flaw IMO is at a different point:
We should see and compare prints. Unfortunately on a website this is not possible, and I believe a calibrated monitor (which I own and use) cannot really replace that.
2. I can support the statement about the experience with Edward Weston contact prints. Many years ago I saw exactly such an exhibition and was blown away. And if one has ever seen such prints the term "hyper-realism" is valid in an instant.
3. I believe the article tells some important ideas which are poorly discussed in this thread. One is the "everything matters" idea in conjunction with the "theory of the unseen". For me it is totally clear and believable, that high resolution and the aspect of "hyper-realism" in general is a valid one. What I cannot judge is the significance of the difference between a lets say D3X with good glass against a MFDB with good glass.
4. In the end the result is the mix of various means and tools. Technique, tools, artist, size of wallet, weight of camera, situation, fantasies about all that interact and produce a result. Everyone in his own fashion. There is excellent i-phone photography, there is excellent MFDB photography and so on. Everyone must find his own way, and part of Marks way seeems to be the MFDB system he uses and his technical perfectionism. Thats totally okay and valid. No need to attack this. I can't afford an IQ180 and am working with my Mamiya Press. No need to become envious or feel bad because Mark loves the qualities of his system.
5. After all I think its all about photographic and artistic identity. And whenever identity gets questioned things easily become nasty. Add a bit of envy and ideology and ... voilá ! Maybe this is all a little bit overrated ...
Cheers
~Chris