Klaus is adamant about one point and always has been: The results may not be used for comparisions between different camera systems.
"Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems. This does also apply for the new EOS tests based on the EOS 50D because of differences in the sensor system (e.g. AA-filter) as well as different RAW-converters."
Therefore your deductions are based on false assumptions and therefore worthless.
Ciao, Walter
PS: EF 100/2.8 USM Macro on 350D was tested to f/22
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-canon-ef-100mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review?start=1
I think you've misunderstood those warnings. Photozone primarily tests lenses for comparison purposes. It is reasonable to suppose that such warnings apply only to the evaluation and comparison of lens quality. For example if one wanted to compare a particular Nikon lens with a Canon equivalent, one couldn't because the results at Photozone are always a product of
both lens performance and sensor performance, and one wouldn't be able to separate the performance of the sensor from the performance of the lens. Likewise, if one wanted to compare a lens that had been tested on the 8mp 350D, with a newer or upgraded lens that had only been tested on the 50D, one would have great difficulty interpreting the results because the 50D is likely to make an inferior lens appear as good as a better quality lens on the 350D.
What I'm doing cannot be described as comparing different camera systems in the sense the warnings apply. The lens is the same, the camera body is different but from the same manufacturer, as opposed to the body being the same but the lenses different.
When comparing lenses, the camera body should be the same but the lenses are obviously always different. In both cases the camera systems are different in their own way. If the Photozone results are valid for comparison of different lenses on the same body, then they are equally valid for comparison of different bodies on the same lens. But they are not valid for comparison of
different lenses on
different bodies. Got it?
The fact that different sensors have different strengths of AA filters is unavoidable. The AA filter is part of the camera, like a lens coating is part of a lens. So what! One presumes that the higher the pixel count, the weaker the AA filter.
What we are concerned about here is, if it's technologically possible for a high pixel-density sensor to continue to deliver more resolution at f stops that we know are in part diffraction limited. If part of that process consists of using a weaker AA filter (or no AA filter at all in the case of the D800E), and better RAW converters, then that's fine by me.
I'm hardly likely to complain when I see a surprisingly sharp and detailed result at F16 from my new D800, "Boo! What a cheat! Nikon has used a weak AA filter and a new, more sophisticated RAW converter."
By the way, thanks for bringing to my attention those results down to F22. What we see here is that an 8mp sensor at F16 delivers
more resolution than a 15mp sensor at F22. However, what's interesting also is that the 15mp sensor continues to deliver more resolution at F22 than the 8mp sensor at F22. That is a susprising result. I wouldn't have thought it likely. My own tests have demonstrated that the resolution of the 10mp 40D and 15mp 50D are visually the same on the monitor, as regards detail at F22, using the same lens.
