[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Some interesting thoughts 

 

http://www.superinfocus.com/from-medium-...-micro-43/

The thoughts are certainly interesting.

However, the results are even more interesting.

Even on low-resolution screens (I write this in March 2019 on a 2560 X 1440), it is very clear and visible that the medium format image in the comparison is superior to that of the MFT system. So if the author intended to show that the MFT system is equal or that the difference is photographically insignificant, he instead documented the opposite.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Interesting bias from you? There is just one (black and white) image per fomat shown, which look virtually indistinguishable from eachother. Both low resolution. 
Also the small 100% crops look virtually identical. Yet you claim that on a "low resolution screen" the CMF image is superior to the MFT image.

Why mention the rather high resolution "low resolution screen" when the images are waaay more low resolution? To hide your odd bias?

Care to point out the "superior" differences of this low res. CMF image?

Feel free to explain what exactly is meant by expressions like these two:

"Interesting bias from you?"

"Why mention the rather high resolution "low resolution screen" when the images are waaay more low resolution? To hide your odd bias?"

If it is difficult to relate to the fact that the aforementioned differences in detail are visible even on a low-resolution screen such as a 2650 x 1440, this picture might be helpful:

http://www.superinfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Comparison.jpg 

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway