Your three mistakes are as follows:
* Zooming the lens. This is likely inconsequential with these lenses, but it is a mistake none the less.
* Equivalent processing. This is a huge mistake which invalidates your test and your results out right. You do not use identical processing with different sensors, even different sensors of the same format.
* You do not mention if the shots were unlabeled. If your wife knew which came from which before picking, the results are less than worthless, they are misleading. There is no shortage of examples of conscious and subconscious human bias, of people picking what they think they should pick. It's just what we do. Even if they were unlabeled, a strict scientist would discount your results because you knew, and there's no shortage of ways you could have consciously or subconsciously telegraphed the "correct" choice to her.
Actually, those are your
three mistaken assumptions.
* Zooming is necessary. Cropping to match FoV negates the purpose of the test, and moving the camera changes the perspective of the image, i.e. the size relationships of various elements - kind of important to a picture. What viable alternative would you suggest?
* I stated 'equivalent' - thinking that I meant 'identical' is a huge mistaken assumption
. Equivalent means processed in such a way as to extract maximum detail with minimum noise, correct color as appropriate, etc. Obviously, that means different processing for different sensors. The idea was to make both images as good as they could be, not to stack the deck against the 7D.
* Did I have to mention that? Really? What do you think, that I said, "Sweetheart, the first image in each pair is from my new, top-of-the-line camera, my favorite camera in the world, the second is from the old piece of crap camera that I'm going to give to our 3 year old as a toy...now tell me which ones you like better, wink-wink, nudge-nudge?
" The fact that you even considered something like that, much less labeled it a mistake that I made, is actually pretty damn offensive. In fact, I watermarked a '+' or a 'o' on each image, each label was randomly assigned to one of the pair, but balanced so there were the same number of each label in total, and I set up a looping slideshow that she looked at when I wasn't in the room. Before you go to the next level and suggest she peeked at the EXIF, if she did I bet she'd have picked the 7D because 7 is a bigger number than 1. She likes my pictures, supports my hobby, and doesn't give a darn about the gear itself. But being a Professor of Anatomy, she does have a keen eye for detail in the images.
FWIW, I am
a card-carrying 'strict scientist', PhD and a day job in the field (including responsibility for some bioanalytical assays conducted under GLP conditions), and once upon a time I actually conducted neuropsychological testing. I explicitly stated the above was subjective and completely anecdotal. You seem to have truncated your quote of my post right before that statement.
Given your evident bias and unsupported assumptions in calling out my 'mistakes' I don't see any point in pursuing this discussion further.