So in closing, I'd like you to answer a question. What is the reason for wanting these shots handheld? What advantage do you believe lies in such a poor testing methodology?
I believe there is a fundamental disconnect between what people are told they will be able to achieve, and what they actually will achieve in day to day use. I think tech heads argue about every single electron a pixel is capable of recording and that is so far removed from the practical aspects of how we use our cameras that much of the raw data we get from tests, analysis, over thinking and opinions is not only not helpful, it has now become counter productive.
We, here, are generally enthusiasts, but it is frightening how so many of even us have no core understanding of photography basics and have swallowed hook line and sinker every morsel of garbage that comes out of our personal favourite posters mouth wrapped in some equation and well balanced argument that seems to make sense.
The reason for my challenge is to illustrate how far removed from actual day to day camera use these bench tests are. I don't want or need to post the results, whatever I post will be argued over as irrelevant or flawed anyway, even if it is how I would actually use both cameras! I already did the tests for myself years ago, I want everybody who can to borrow a camera to do the tests for themselves to see how much difference it makes to not use perfect technique, because that is the shooting situation most of us find ourselves in most of the time.
I have a very heavy tripod, it leaves the studio about six times a year, how many wildlife and landscape photographers shoot at midday when they have the "best" light and contrast, how many bird shooters do BIF with a tripod, how many of us use manual focus all the time, or a remote release, ever take your camera off base iso, shoot outside your lenses optimal aperture, use IS, push shutter speed, fail to optimally expose?
All these factors will impact IQ, often good IS will give you sharper images than more pixels, who ever says that? How important is information like that to an enthusiast who is just looking to get help on a purchase? Many of us have the knowledge to truly help those people, but our hands on experience s constantly questioned and belittled by people with more time, typing skills, and equations.
A 7D and 300 f4 might resolve more detail than their cropped 5D MkIII on a test bench, for years people were saying you'd get 60% more "reach", now the consensus is down to a more reasonable 20% (which IMHO is still way too high), but what will you actually achieve when you are trying to take pictures of your kid playing soccer? I would argue that rather than advise the person to buy a crop camera for the "additional reach" they would actually get very similar results by simply cropping, after all nobody on soccer sidelines is shooting with "perfect technique", or don't get the 7D, get a 1.4 TC or the 400 f5.6, but no, for years the 1.6 "crop factor", that magical "60% more reach" meme has ruled the roost.
That is the point of the "challenge" to separate fact, actual results, from the fiction we are too often sold.