"That advantage disappears at the higher ISOs"Can you cite sources, or is this your personal opinion?
That's a myth, and I'm not sure where it started.
The Mk3 to me always had this 'painterly' look at 800 and beyond. That's the best word I can think of.Again, not objective. Personal impressions are not authoritative.
Web tests expose both cams the same, and that's stupid. If one cam holds on to it's shadows so much better, you can expose differently in the real world.How would one objectively determine the proper exposure for each sensor?
It's not something you can be told, it's something you have to see for yourself.This is 100% unpersuasive to me, as are nearly all appeals to personal experience. If it can't be demonstrated in double-blind experiments, there's no reason to be believe it's real.
After all, there is nothing that replaces using two types of tools yourself and pushing them to the limit.Except reproducible double-blind experiments.
As an example of how "experts" can be fooled: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/you-are-not-so-smart-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/
These types of experiments have been replicated many times, and the summary is that you can't trust your own perceptions. Show me objective tests, or you've shown me nothing.