To my understanding, this is an honest atempt to compare IQ from truly different formats.
I know by watching closely over the internet that DMF always beats dslr's. It's my belief that it is not the 16bit subject but the bigger size of the sensor capturing the image. Micro contrast is a tad better. "Regional" dynamic range always shows better even if all around DR appears to be the same. 3D effects is usually seen in MF, a lot less in FF dslr's. Let's wait for truly professional real life work from these cameras to see. If 3D effects is half that of MF, I may end up burying my desire for a DMF back, at least till I win the Lotto.
Thing is, new top of the line dslr's are aproaching (or met) low count pixel DMF backs for a fraction of the money (as predicted). Other than that (imho) is denial.
I can't justify myself buying a 22mp DMF anymore. A 39mp back or better, well... that must be another different story.
Eduardo
I think if money is the issue (return on investment), then "cut to the chase" ... that's the comparison criteria, not image quality. It is quite reasonable to say that one of the higher meg DSLRs is "enough" for your applications. In some cases, it's enough for my applications also.
However, size matters and experience does count as opposed to being "denial" ... since I have and use the smallest MFD back currently available ... AND have, or have used, the current crop of high meg DSLRs, I can say that rule is still in effect ... size matters ... not just sensor size, but also the larger pixel pitch that is inherent with the larger MFD sensors.
My 16 meg CFV-II back still produces better IQ than my 22 meg Canon 1DsMKIII did, or the new 24.6 meg FF Sony A900 I just secured ... a 22 meg MFD back would produce even better IQ since the sensor is larger with the same pixel pitch as the CFV.
I also strongly suspect that some of these 35mm digital cameras are beginning to outstrip the lens systems of the camera companies making them ... and paying for a mega 35mm DSLR is starting to provide dimminishing returns. I sure felt that way about Canon ... and I believe THAT was the reason so many people spent a fortune securing Leica APO optics for their 1 series Canons ... only to lose all the benefits of a modern AF DSLR.
The only reason I now have a high meg Sony A900 is because of the stellar Zeiss Auto Focus optics featuring all kinds of exoctic glass and multiple ASPH elements. Other A900 users have already noted that the legecy lenses, which were fine with Minolta film cameras or crop frame, lower meg Alpha cameras, fall short on the A900.