Hi,
The first part of the article is about the development of the IQ platform. I would say that the IQ platform has been met by positive response.
The other part discusses the integration of the Sony CMOS sensor into the IQ-series. Here there is a significant difference. Obviously the sensor vendor offers a choice of CFAs, either more optimized for high ISO or more orthogonal ones. I would suggest that different choices are also made for DSLRs, and maybe even suggest that the choice is not simply between ISO and fidelity.
The big difference between Sony CMOS and Kodak/DALSA CCDs is that the Sony CMOS delivers a digital output while the CCDs deliver an analogue output. With CCDs Phase One can do a lot to optimize signal paths, but with CMOS they just read the digital signals of the chip. There are probably quite a few tunable parameters on the CMOS sensor.
Once you have the signals coming out of the chip, and in case of CCD sensor amplified and converted to digital the image is written to a file. The next step to convert that file to an image, and here is the work of the "Image Professor" comes into play, creating camera profiles to reproduce colour.
Please note, nothing of this is about MF, many compact cameras had CCDs for a long time. Many modern DSLRs have CMOS with on sensor column converters, and that is the technology delivering best shadow detail, but some still have off sensor ADCs (all Canons, Nikon D700 and Nikon D4).
There may be some advantage for Phase One:
1) Better calibration data. Each camera is probably independently measured, and calibration data added to raw file
2) The profiles may be tweaked for skin reproduction under strobe light. While more generic cameras may be optimized for a wider set of conditions.
An interesting question may be why Phase One doesn't make multishot cameras. I guess that the main reason is that the customers they are addressing don't use multishot.
Another point is that DSLR vendors could very well design a camera optimised for studio portrait, but I guess that sector may not be their main sector. There are plenty of studio shooters perfectly happy with Canons and Nikons, so working with Canon or Nikon is probably OK for quite many photographers. I also guess it is a bit about learning the equipment.
Best regards
Erik
Out of all articles I've ever seen about MF sensor quality, this is the first one that the pictures presented and the development of them reminds so much of a common CMos DSLR… If I didn't know that the article is about an MFDB, I would be confident that this is a next step Dslr that claims to have surpassed other high end DSLRs in DR and colour stability, by sacrificing a bit of its higher Iso performance… Hence (in my mind) the question still remains: "Why should one buy an MFDB (in ten times the price) to only improve a little than a current high end Dslr"? …especially if he can wait for some time and purchase a next generation Dslr that will (inevitably) carry the improvements. To my mind, MFDBs are not there to provide higher resolution than Dslrs, but to supplement what Dslrs can't do or are unsatisfactory in performing…. and this is colour accuracy at lower Iso, Tech and view camera compatibility, multishot, ability to "dig" deeper in the shadows with colour still present, and colour stability with respect to colour tonality. Sorry, but I don't see the special project which the new back can carry out and that alternative (and cheaper) equipment won't be able to perform to the same or better level…