Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.
35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.
There is no replacement for displacement.
Again you are talking about two things, is it DR we are talking about? Then it is clear that Nikon is the winner. FWC and read noise, nothing else than pure physics.
Is it resolution we are discussing, then you can optimize lenses who are smaller in diameter = 24x36 just like the manufacturers do for smaller sensors than 24x36mm . What's needed is gained contrast and resolution that is in proportion of the loss with the smaller sensor. BUT the 24x36 is light years ahead of a MF sensor and MF lenses has lower contrast and lower resolution per area unit so that is not so big deal as it is to use the same Canon lens on a 24x36 and a APS 18Mp to get the same contrast. signal/noise etc
You must be the one of the most uncomprehending persons here at CR. I suggest that you read and study the subject and try to understand a little before you so consistently pronounce your things
35mm does not have the detail of a larger format. Period. End of story. There is no argument here, it's a fact.
Sorry, but it is not actually a fact. A larger format simply has larger pixels spread over a greater area, that's all. Assuming you frame the same subject the same way, with the same physical aperture, the 35mm sensor would perform the same as the MFD sensor. It's called etendue
. The MFD sensor might have a potentially higher maximum saturation point (FWC), however what actually matters is how much light actually reaches the sensor. With the same physical aperture, both the 35mm and MFD sensors would gather the same amount of light...since it is the lens that captures light, it's front element doing the gathering and the aperture controls how much of what was gathered actually reaches the sensor.
Put the same number of pixels on subject (i.e. fill the frame and compose the same), and for the same aperture and exposure time, S/N of the resulting image will be identical. The only difference would be ISO, which doesn't do anything other than change what number of electrons constitute "maximum saturation". You would need to use a higher ISO in the MFD than with the 35mm sensor, but both would produce identical pictures with the same noise characteristics. The MFD lens would have to bend light more, so you'll have a greater problem with optical aberrations, which ironically would actually give the 35mm setup the advantage.
Please, read this article before you continue insisting that MFD is just plain and simply better without question: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/index.html
Roger Clark argues that the 7D is actually better from a "gathering detail at the same S/N" standpoint than a 35mm FF camera, but the same argument holds true regarding FF and MFD, as the two have about the same difference in terms of ratio of area as an APS-C and FF do.