I too applaud Bert for taking the time to do this and for sharing the results but I don't think this is an "experiment on image quality and real life resolution." What Bert has done is similar to taking six negatives made with six different films and six different cameras to six different labs and then using the resulting prints as the basis for comparing the quality of the films. I think we all would say "wait a minute, that's no way to compare films, things have to remain more constant than that from one film to the other if you're going to validly compare them." There are a huge number of variables here that affect the results including the equipment and methodology used to scan the negatives, the software and methodology used to convert the RAW digital files, the quality of the various lenses, Bert's ability to identically focus six different cameras six different times, etc. etc. almost ad infinitum.

This isn't intended as a criticism of Bert at all, like others have said I think it's great that he's doing his own "testing" and has taken the time to share the results. I just don't think this "test" should be taken as saying anything more than that these happen to be the results Bert obtained when he used the various cameras, lenses, scanners, software, films, chips, computer, monitor, etc. and that changing anything in the chain could and al ost certainly would change the results. I do know for a fact that the differences in the prints I make from my 6x7, 4x5, 8x10 and digital cameras are far far less than the differences shown here among these same formats.