Official release of Nikon D850

[SecureGSM]

Just to add few point to the excellent write up by arthurbikemad,

5D IV is the first 5D body that received 1D body metering system sans dedicated metering processor of 1dx II.

So better tracking, more accurate and colour aware metering, better WB for out of camera images.

Increased AF point low light sensitivity to -3EV transates to much improved AF accuracy as 5D III AF system used to struggle in low light situation and that resulted in decreased AF accuracy ( quality of focus).

Remote shutter release port relocated to the front of the camera makes big difference for cameras installed with L-bracket when shooting in portrait orientation. Shutter release cable does not get in the way any longer. Thank you Canon for that.
Increased pixel level sharpness by nearly 8% - all your lenses get instant sharpness boost. This is a substantial amount!

An increased sensor resolution at the same time adds to the statement above. Now you can print larger with better quality or view on larger screen.

A little better AF spread.

Now, very subtle one: AF joystick is more refined on 5D IV
Better weather proctection level than the one of predecessor.

P.S. I just made a purchase of my brand new 5D IV body and paid A$3,330.00 with free delivery and all taxes included. That equates to just US$2,650.00 at the current exchange rate.

Here is the link for fellow Australians that may are on lookout for a well priced 5D IV body:

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/182569592138

Do not forget to add coupon "PAINT" at checkout to received 10% discounts off the listed A$3,700.00 price. Once applied, the price will change to A$3,330.00. This deal is valid until the 8th of September 2017.

 

[MrFotoFool]

This is great! You are really convincing me to ditch my 1D4 and forget about the Nikon D850 (which I could not afford anyway) and get a 5D4. Up until now I thought it was minimally different than 5D3 (since I have zero interest in video) but improved low light focus and focus in general is great news. 30MP should be plenty, since I have managed to upsize files from my 5D3 and even my previous 5D2 as large as 40x60 inches.

 

[SecureGSM]

I haven't mentioned the single biggest gripe with 5D3 that made me to sell the body:

I was thoroughly disappointed with ISO 3200+ images taken with 5D3 to the point that I said to myself: my 6D is a better low light camera than the 5D3. Yes, 5D4 Is by A$1,000 more expensive than brand new 5D3 , but also allows me to produce much better imagery in challenging situations. It works out as a better solution mid to long term anyway. I would rather enjoy my photography now. The life is too short ...

This is great! You are really convincing me to ditch my 1D4 and forget about the Nikon D850 (which I could not afford anyway) and get a 5D4. Up until now I thought it was minimally different than 5D3 (since I have zero interest in video) but improved low light focus and focus in general is great news. 30MP should be plenty, since I have managed to upsize files from my 5D3 and even my previous 5D2 as large as 40x60 inches.

 

[PixelTrawler]

Just to add few point to the excellent write up by arthurbikemad,

5D IV is the first 5D body that received 1D body metering system sans dedicated metering processor of 1dx II.

So better tracking, more accurate and colour aware metering, better WB for out of camera images.

Increased AF point low light sensitivity to -3EV transates to much improved AF accuracy as 5D III AF system used to struggle in low light situation and that resulted in decreased AF accuracy ( quality of focus).

Remote shutter release port relocated to the front of the camera makes big difference for cameras installed with L-bracket when shooting in portrait orientation. Shutter release cable does not get in the way any longer. Thank you Canon for that.
Increased pixel level sharpness by nearly 8% - all your lenses get instant sharpness boost. This is a substantial amount!

An increased sensor resolution at the same time adds to the statement above. Now you can print larger with better quality or view on larger screen.

A little better AF spread.

Now, very subtle one: AF joystick is more refined on 5D IV
Better weather proctection level than the one of predecessor.

P.S. I just made a purchase of my brand new 5D IV body and paid A$3,330.00 with free delivery and all taxes included. That equates to just US$2,650.00 at the current exchange rate.

Here is the link for fellow Australians that may are on lookout for a well priced 5D IV body:

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/182569592138

Do not forget to add coupon "PAINT" at checkout to received 10% discounts off the listed A$3,700.00 price. Once applied, the price will change to A$3,330.00. This deal is valid until the 8th of September 2017.

Just a quick correction. The 5d4 does have a metering processor. A digic 6. Its main imaging chip is the 6+.
Its not rated as a dual processor as it only has the one imaging chip but it does have 2 digics on board.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Thanks for all the advice. Nikon, shmikon - who needs them? I have sent in my 5D3 and 1D4 (and one lens) to KEH and have ordered a refurbished 5D4 from Canon direct. It has arrived but I was not home to sign for it so I will pick it up tomorrow morning at UPS. I look forward to enjoying the last camera I will need for a long time. Of course I said that when I got my 5D3, but this time I mean it!

 

[SecureGSM]

That's the spirit!

Just to make you feel even better about the last camera that you will need for a long time: here is pixel level sharpness results for some Canon and Nikon cameras. the larger the number the better. I have explained previously, that this may be an important metrics for someone who prints large or view/project images on a larger screens:

Nikon D850: 1,659.7 AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G, F5.6, ISO 100
Nikon D750: 1,811.2 as above
Nikon D810: 1,751.8 as above
Canon 5DsR: 1,690.1 EF85mm f/1.8 USM F5.6 ISO 100
Canon 5D IV: 1,864.2 as above
Canon 80D: 1,906.8 EF50mm f/1.4 USM F5.6 ISO 100

your new 5D IV is 15% sharper than Nikon D850 at pixel level. you will be able to produce much sharper images with your old lenses as a bonus. 15% of pixel level sharpness advantage is the approximate sharpness difference between AFMA adjusted lens and the one that is out of tune by approximately +/- 7-8 AFMA points.

Thanks for all the advice. Nikon, shmikon - who needs them?... I look forward to enjoying the last camera I will need for a long time. Of course I said that when I got my 5D3, but this time I mean it!

 

[Mikehit]

That's the spirit!

Just to make you feel even better about the last camera that you will need for a long time: here is pixel level sharpness results for some Canon and Nikon cameras. the larger the number the better. I have explained previously, that this may be an important metrics for someone who prints large or view/project images on a larger screens:

Nikon D850: 1,659.7 AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G, F5.6, ISO 100
Nikon D750: 1,811.2 as above
Nikon D810: 1,751.8 as above
Canon 5DsR: 1,690.1 EF85mm f/1.8 USM F5.6 ISO 100
Canon 5D IV: 1,864.2 as above
Canon 80D: 1,906.8 EF50mm f/1.4 USM F5.6 ISO 100

your new 5D IV is 15% sharper than Nikon D850 at pixel level. you will be able to produce much sharper images with your old lenses as a bonus. 15% of pixel level sharpness advantage is the approximate sharpness difference between AFMA adjusted lens and the one that is out of tune by approximately +/- 7-8 AFMA points.

I can't remember if I have asked you this before, but how does that offset against the 'de-sharpening' (is that a word) effect of magnifying the 80D image more?

 

[Ian_of_glos]

Thanks for all the advice. Nikon, shmikon - who needs them? I have sent in my 5D3 and 1D4 (and one lens) to KEH and have ordered a refurbished 5D4 from Canon direct. It has arrived but I was not home to sign for it so I will pick it up tomorrow morning at UPS. I look forward to enjoying the last camera I will need for a long time. Of course I said that when I got my 5D3, but this time I mean it!

I would just like to endorse everything that Arthurbikemad and SecureGSM have said.
When the 5D mark 4 was first announced I did not buy one immediately because so many of the reviews at the time were very negative about it. The reviews were not openly critical of the camera (apart from its video features) - it was more a case of damning it with faint praise.
As my 5D mark 3 was on its last legs, I had to do something - either go for another 5D mark 3, or upgrade to a 1Dx (either the 1DX mark 1 or mark2), change brands (Sony and Nikon being the only alternatives I seriously considered) or go for a 5D mark 4.
I took several of the cameras on my shortlist for a test drive and in the end I went for the 5D mark 4. Having owned the camera now for 6 months I am really pleased with the choice I made. It is a far better camera than I was expecting and many of the improvements are difficult to quantify. The focussing is much better than the 5D mark 3, especially in low light and it is more forgiving of photographers who make lots of mistakes such as I do. The pictures just look better and I cannot really explain why.
On paper the Nikon D850 looks like a very good camera indeed, and it is probably slightly better than the 5D mark 4 - but then it is a more recent camera so you would expect it to be slightly better. However I doubt that the difference is sufficient to justify selling all your Canon equipment and buying a D850 instead.
One thing I have noticed is that Canon don't really proclaim how good their cameras are. They are always a bit reserved about it, and so I have always found that their cameras are a slightly better than I was expecting. This to me is better than some of the other camera manufactures who make claims that are either only partly true or, if you read the small print, require exceptionally favourable shooting conditions to be valid.

 

[SecureGSM]

If you were to upscale any image you would lose sharpness/contrast/details to a certain degree.

what I am saying though is:

if your were to crop the files to an identical pixel size both horizontally and vertically, and print them large, then 80d printed image will be much sharper than the one from 5DsR or D850...

the notion that one can CROP 5DsR files to the size of 80D and then print them large and still be better of, evidently does not hold the water.

If you DOWNSAMPLE 5DsR files instead, then it is a completely different story as you lose nearly 20% at pixel level sharpness BUT make up for the loss due to approx. 45% image size downsampling. I hope it makes sense.

I am looking forward to 80D sensor tech upscaled and implemented in 5DsR II. now, that would be one ultimate High Res / High IQ machine. I hope Canon realised that the sensor tech they used in 80D beats every single available Canon, Sony and Nikon sensor when it comes to pixel level sharpness.

I can't remember if I have asked you this before, but how does that offset against the 'de-sharpening' (is that a word) effect of magnifying the 80D image more?

 

[Hflm]

The 5D4 is a significant upgrade to the Mk3 despite what you read online, the camera is improved in every way IMO. I'd never go back to a Mk3, it's a better camera than my 1DX2 in many ways...

I am curious if you have used both (5D3 and 5D4) and if you notice an improvement in the AI focus tracking. I sometimes photograph animals and found the 5D3 cannot keep the head in focus, but lags a bit where the point of focus is farther back on the body. I bought a used 1D4 that works well for this, but it is so darn heavy.

Without sounding like a canon advert I'd say it is improved, they claim it has improved algorithms etc etc but I'd take a guess and say it's the focus system in general that has been improved, that plus more umph from the processor contributes to better AF in general, tbh I don't see any significant change from my 5D4 and my 1DX2. What is a big improvement in both bodies is the low light performance of the focus system, this is the one area that I feel great steps has been made by Canon. My 5D3 used to struggle with low light AF where the 5D4 seems to see in the dark, that said my 1DX2 did have issues last week shooting with the 85ii into the direct sun! Things that stand out for me are, the touch screen, the touch screen AF has way more options than the 1DX2, low light AF, the extra MP, WiFi/phone app is very useful, Video AF is GREAT, the new focus toggle button as seen on the 7D2, feels lighter than a 5D3, I am sure these things may seem minor but they add up as a whole. Hire one?

Never as good as a D850 but it will do. ;D

Matt Granger put the D850 against the D5. Although claimed to use the same AF system, the performance difference was huge:

https://petapixel.com/2017/09/27/nikon-d850-autofocus-tracking-not-good-d5-test-finds/

 

[Mikehit]

If you were to upscale any image you would lose sharpness/contrast/details to a certain degree.

what I am saying though is:

if your were to crop the files to an identical pixel size both horizontally and vertically, and print them large, then 80d printed image will be much sharper than the one from 5DsR or D850...

the notion that one can CROP 5DsR files to the size of 80D and then print them large and still be better of, evidently does not hold the water.

If you DOWNSAMPLE 5DsR files instead, then it is a completely different story as you lose nearly 20% at pixel level sharpness BUT make up for the loss due to approx. 45% image size downsampling. I hope it makes sense.

I am looking forward to 80D sensor tech upscaled and implemented in 5DsR II. now, that would be one ultimate High Res / High IQ machine. I hope Canon realised that the sensor tech they used in 80D beats every single available Canon, Sony and Nikon sensor when it comes to pixel level sharpness.

I can't remember if I have asked you this before, but how does that offset against the 'de-sharpening' (is that a word) effect of magnifying the 80D image more?

Than you.
Another of those 'it depends...' situations.

 

[Hflm]

That's the spirit!

Just to make you feel even better about the last camera that you will need for a long time: here is pixel level sharpness results for some Canon and Nikon cameras. the larger the number the better. I have explained previously, that this may be an important metrics for someone who prints large or view/project images on a larger screens:

Nikon D850: 1,659.7 AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G, F5.6, ISO 100
Nikon D750: 1,811.2 as above
Nikon D810: 1,751.8 as above
Canon 5DsR: 1,690.1 EF85mm f/1.8 USM F5.6 ISO 100
Canon 5D IV: 1,864.2 as above
Canon 80D: 1,906.8 EF50mm f/1.4 USM F5.6 ISO 100

your new 5D IV is 15% sharper than Nikon D850 at pixel level. you will be able to produce much sharper images with your old lenses as a bonus. 15% of pixel level sharpness advantage is the approximate sharpness difference between AFMA adjusted lens and the one that is out of tune by approximately +/- 7-8 AFMA points.

Thanks for all the advice. Nikon, shmikon - who needs them?... I look forward to enjoying the last camera I will need for a long time. Of course I said that when I got my 5D3, but this time I mean it!

Could you post the definition of this metric and the way you obtained the numbers in your post? Having used quite many of these cameras, I am highly sceptical of what you present here.

 

[SecureGSM]

I downloaded RAW files for all tested cameras from the following page:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d850&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=sony_a7rii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dsr&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.006536766544423875&y=0.3382338704235256

once, downloaded, I fed the RAW file into Reikan Focal Quality of Focus Analyser tool.


please see a couple of reports attached.

p.s. images, downloaded from the following page are not the same as on the page in the link above.
Therefore, I was able to run the QoF test over 2 image files per each camera instead of just a single file.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=nikon_d750&attr144_2=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_3=nikon_d750&attr146_0=100_3&attr146_1=100_3&attr146_2=100_4&attr146_3=100_4&normalization=full&widget=542&x=0.124786377&y=0.5025702

Could you post the definition of this metric and the way you obtained the numbers in your post? Having used quite many of these cameras, I am highly sceptical of what you present here.

 

[Hflm]

I downloaded RAW files for all tested cameras from the following page:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d850&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=sony_a7rii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dsr&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.006536766544423875&y=0.3382338704235256

once, downloaded, I fed the RAW file into Reikan Focal Quality of Focus Analyser tool.


please see a couple of reports attached.

p.s. images, downloaded from the following page are not the same as on the page in the link above.
Therefore, I was able to run the QoF test over 2 image files per each camera instead of just a single file.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=nikon_d750&attr144_2=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_3=nikon_d750&attr146_0=100_3&attr146_1=100_3&attr146_2=100_4&attr146_3=100_4&normalization=full&widget=542&x=0.124786377&y=0.5025702

Could you post the definition of this metric and the way you obtained the numbers in your post? Having used quite many of these cameras, I am highly sceptical of what you present here.

I think this to be quite a questionable approach.
First, you have to keep in mind the demosaicing process and the noise reduction or sharpening metrics baked into the raw file, different lenses of different focal lengths (where sharpness depends, too, on the subject distance; my Focal results differ when calibrating my lens/body combinations depending on subject distance or consequent FOV changes). Another problem is focus accuracy. Nailing focus perfectly is not so easy and Dpreview quite often commented on the difficulty of achieving this (the A9 images were withdrawn, for example).

And of course, not directly relevant here, we have different AA filters, which usually tend lower contrast at higher cycles, but reduce false detail due to alising (often gives the impression of higher acuity) and still allow for sharpening in post (no spectral cut off, so the information is not lost).

This is why people like Jim Kasson and others try to use raw converters which allow as much user control over the demosaicing as possible or move the cam on an electric sledge to hit peak sharpness.

 

[SecureGSM]

Not saying this is perfectly accurate, however, please notice:
That all 3 Nikon bodies were tested with the same lens attached, same ISO, F value, at identical distance to the target , framing and nearly identical light levels (EV value). I agree that QoF values may change considerably if light level has changed, but I do not observe enough EV level variation in files to be concerned. 10EV was an average level in files if I I am correct here.
With IS switched off and critical focus confirmed as I have sets of Test images obtained from 2 bodies (2 serial numbers , different firmware version) and results are nearly identical.

Considering All of the above, I am comfortable to conclude that D750 body demosaiced RAW file is pixel level sharper than the same of D850 and by a substantial margin.

On unrelated note: I come across a statement that “your old lens does not resolve as good on high resolution body”
Or “ high resolution body outresolves your old lens”
Well, it looks like what I found is perfectly explains what really takes place here:

High resolution sensors (5Ds, d850) do not offer the best pixel level sharpness. Hence your lens that resolved at around 1800 level on 5D III all that sudden performs sluggishly on 5Ds at pixel level.

I have a logical explanation to my statement:

No one complained so far that an old lens was outresolved on Canon 80D. Not a single report.
How do you explain that fact as pixel density of 80D is very similar (actually even higher than the same of 5Ds)?
However, if we accept that I was correct to find that 80D sensor resolves much better at pixel level than 5Ds, then it all makes sense all the sudden.

I downloaded RAW files for all tested cameras from the following page:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d850&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=sony_a7rii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dsr&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.006536766544423875&y=0.3382338704235256

once, downloaded, I fed the RAW file into Reikan Focal Quality of Focus Analyser tool.


please see a couple of reports attached.

p.s. images, downloaded from the following page are not the same as on the page in the link above.
Therefore, I was able to run the QoF test over 2 image files per each camera instead of just a single file.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=nikon_d750&attr144_2=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_3=nikon_d750&attr146_0=100_3&attr146_1=100_3&attr146_2=100_4&attr146_3=100_4&normalization=full&widget=542&x=0.124786377&y=0.5025702

Could you post the definition of this metric and the way you obtained the numbers in your post? Having used quite many of these cameras, I am highly sceptical of what you present here.

I think this to be quite a questionable approach.
First, you have to keep in mind the demosaicing process and the noise reduction or sharpening metrics baked into the raw file, different lenses of different focal lengths (where sharpness depends, too, on the subject distance; my Focal results differ when calibrating my lens/body combinations depending on subject distance or consequent FOV changes). Another problem is focus accuracy. Nailing focus perfectly is not so easy and Dpreview quite often commented on the difficulty of achieving this (the A9 images were withdrawn, for example).

And of course, not directly relevant here, we have different AA filters, which usually tend lower contrast at higher cycles, but reduce false detail due to alising (often gives the impression of higher acuity) and still allow for sharpening in post (no spectral cut off, so the information is not lost).

This is why people like Jim Kasson and others try to use raw converters which allow as much user control over the demosaicing as possible or move the cam on an electric sledge to hit peak sharpness.

 

[Mikehit]

High resolution sensors (5Ds, d850) do not offer the best pixel level sharpness. Hence your lens that resolved at around 1800 level on 5D III all that sudden performs sluggishly on 5Ds at pixel level.

And yet the 80D, which has the same density as the 5DS is the best of the lot.

 

[SecureGSM]

Correct, 80D sensor has a higher pixel density than 5Ds by approx. 20%. but next generation sensor tech.

I am saying this:
the 80D / 5D IV sensor tech is better than the older tech in 7D II and 5Ds. hence I said the following before:

"...I am looking forward to 80D sensor tech upscaled and implemented in 5DsR II. now, that would be one ultimate High Res / High IQ machine. I hope Canon realised that the sensor tech they used in 80D beats every single available Canon, Sony and Nikon sensor when it comes to pixel level sharpness..."

High resolution sensors (5Ds, d850) do not offer the best pixel level sharpness. Hence your lens that resolved at around 1800 level on 5D III all that sudden performs sluggishly on 5Ds at pixel level.

And yet the 80D, which has the same density as the 5DS is the best of the lot.

 

[Mikehit]

Correct, 80D sensor has a higher pixel density than 5Ds by approx. 20%. but next generation sensor tech.

I am saying this:
the 80D / 5D IV sensor tech is better than the older tech in 7D II and 5Ds. hence I said the following before:

Excuse my scepticism, but given the way sensor tech evolves and how few successive products use the same sensor tech, I find it hard to draw a conclusion you did. And you especially cannot say this when comparing between brands (Sony vs 'nikon designed Sony' vs Canon)
It would also be interesting to know how you define 'different sensor tech' given that the 6D2 is not the same sensor tech as previous models despite what people said at the time of its release.

 

[Hflm]

Not saying this is perfectly accurate, however, please notice:
That all 3 Nikon bodies were tested with the same lens attached, same ISO, F value, at identical distance to the target , framing and nearly identical light levels (EV value). I agree that QoF values may change considerably if light level has changed, but I do not observe enough EV level variation in files to be concerned. 10EV was an average level in files if I I am correct here.
With IS switched off and critical focus confirmed as I have sets of Test images obtained from 2 bodies (2 serial numbers , different firmware version) and results are nearly identical.

Considering All of the above, I am comfortable to conclude that D750 body demosaiced RAW file is pixel level sharper than the same of D850 and by a substantial margin.

On unrelated note: I come across a statement that “your old lens does not resolve as good on high resolution body”
Or “ high resolution body outresolves your old lens”
Well, it looks like what I found is perfectly explains what really takes place here:

High resolution sensors (5Ds, d850) do not offer the best pixel level sharpness. Hence your lens that resolved at around 1800 level on 5D III all that sudden performs sluggishly on 5Ds at pixel level.

I have a logical explanation to my statement:

No one complained so far that an old lens was outresolved on Canon 80D. Not a single report.
How do you explain that fact as pixel density of 80D is very similar (actually even higher than the same of 5Ds)?
However, if we accept that I was correct to find that 80D sensor resolves much better at pixel level than 5Ds, then it all makes sense all the sudden.

I downloaded RAW files for all tested cameras from the following page:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d850&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=sony_a7rii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dsr&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.006536766544423875&y=0.3382338704235256

once, downloaded, I fed the RAW file into Reikan Focal Quality of Focus Analyser tool.


please see a couple of reports attached.

p.s. images, downloaded from the following page are not the same as on the page in the link above.
Therefore, I was able to run the QoF test over 2 image files per each camera instead of just a single file.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=nikon_d750&attr144_2=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_3=nikon_d750&attr146_0=100_3&attr146_1=100_3&attr146_2=100_4&attr146_3=100_4&normalization=full&widget=542&x=0.124786377&y=0.5025702

Could you post the definition of this metric and the way you obtained the numbers in your post? Having used quite many of these cameras, I am highly sceptical of what you present here.

I think this to be quite a questionable approach.
First, you have to keep in mind the demosaicing process and the noise reduction or sharpening metrics baked into the raw file, different lenses of different focal lengths (where sharpness depends, too, on the subject distance; my Focal results differ when calibrating my lens/body combinations depending on subject distance or consequent FOV changes). Another problem is focus accuracy. Nailing focus perfectly is not so easy and Dpreview quite often commented on the difficulty of achieving this (the A9 images were withdrawn, for example).

And of course, not directly relevant here, we have different AA filters, which usually tend lower contrast at higher cycles, but reduce false detail due to alising (often gives the impression of higher acuity) and still allow for sharpening in post (no spectral cut off, so the information is not lost).

This is why people like Jim Kasson and others try to use raw converters which allow as much user control over the demosaicing as possible or move the cam on an electric sledge to hit peak sharpness.

No doesn't make sense, see the link below. I owned the D750 and D810 and no way, even at pixel level, was the D750 better than the D810. The AA filter alone reduced acuity and strong sharpening was required.

What happens here is very likely demosaicing bias due to in-RAW baked values and Raw-processor influences (note that Dpreview uses standard values). DCRAW is able to get the information straight from the raw file. This is nicely discussed here: http://www.strollswithmydog.com/raw-converter-sharpening-with-sliders-at-zero/
You can nicely see the influence of gamma, WB, as well as RAW-converter.
I don't know how Focal measures the Quality factor in detail, probably via looking at the edge intensity profile like in the link. Seeing such a strong impact already negates comparisons without taking this factor into account.

The number of pixels per gradient is additionally important and influences slanted edge sharpness in the used metric. It is even possible that the higher pixel camera under this metric has less acuity. Instead you just resolve the edge intensity profile better (which is not a pure step function due to the lens), but has a finite width. In research I often face a similar problem in numerics, when dealing with shocks (are similar to step functions here).

Regarding the resolution, just a note. If you have a diffraction limited lens for f/8, you can have at most 29MP resolution (2pixels per Airy disc, wavelength 550nm, reduces to 19MP for 700nm) on FF. If the used lenses were diffraction limited to f5.6, your values change (60MP at 500nm and 39MP at 700nm) on FF sensors. This is the maximum you can get irrespective of the MP of the sensor. The latter situation for an APSC sensor means 27MP and 17MP, respectively. So both are affected similarly relative to their pixel count.

 

[AlanF]

I don't know how Focal measures the Quality factor in detail, probably via looking at the edge intensity profile like in the link. Seeing such a strong impact already negates comparisons without taking this factor into account.

The number of pixels per gradient is additionally important and influences slanted edge sharpness in the used metric. It is even possible that the higher pixel camera under this metric has less acuity. Instead you just resolve the edge intensity profile better (which is not a pure step function due to the lens), but has a finite width. In research I often face a similar problem in numerics, when dealing with shocks (are similar to step functions here).

Regarding the resolution, just a note. If you have a diffraction limited lens for f/8, you can have at most 29MP resolution (2pixels per Airy disc, wavelength 550nm, reduces to 19MP for 700nm) on FF. If the used lenses were diffraction limited to f5.6, your values change (60MP at 500nm and 39MP at 700nm) on FF sensors. This is the maximum you can get irrespective of the MP of the sensor. The latter situation for an APSC sensor means 27MP and 17MP, respectively. So both are affected similarly relative to their pixel count.

+1
The point about measuring IQ from Reikan FoCal is borne out in practice. FoCal does indeed measure Quality of Focus in terms of edge sharpness, that is acutance, and acutance appears higher on lower mpx sensors. I routinely calibrate the same lenses on both a 5DSR and a 5DIV (and before that a 5DIII) and the lower resolution sensor gives a higher QoF despite being truly trounced in resolution tests.