Upload & Sell: On
1) In modern systems you have SHARPENING. At what contrast level do you "disqualify" the resolution result? How do you judge contrast?
The sharpening algorithm for different glass (Oly vs. Zeiss, etc.) or different camera or mfr (D70s vs.1D MK II) or different lens 24L TS-E II vs. 100/2, or MF vs FF is not a "one size fits all".
Many folks have an expectation that our sharpening should be identical for all glass/camera combinations to produce meaningful or comparable results. When I first switched from consumer grade Sigma on Nikon D70s to Zeiss on Canon 1D MK II, I was totally dismayed by how soft the images coming from the "professional" gear were compared with my former results. Likewise, I didn't care a lot for the change from CCD to CMOS (different subject).
Chuck Westfall of Canon educated me that the "pro" gear would allow for more aggressive sharpening than what I had been accustomed to applying (iirc). While this was of course a Nikon vs. Canon, he also showed me (I just forget which models) the diff needed in the Canon lineup. The salient point here is regarding your final image output ... of which the processing is a significant part of the entire process, it doesn't stop at the lens capture. Kind of like "The Camera", "The Negative", "The Print"
For those expecting to use the same sharpening algorithm that was defined for FF when using MF and judging the comparative results based on that, imo, you are leaving a lot of goodness on the table if you stop formulating your conclusion at that point. There are those will say that using a different sharpening algorithm with your MF glass proves that it isn't as sharp. To this I'll say two primary things:
1) Contrast and resolution are interdependent @ generating perceived sharpness, but not the same thing.
2) Final output rules all
Sharpening algorithms vary between mfr's and models and to a degree is a matter of subjective taste @ the final output that you desire for a given image. So, if you like the "look" of MF, starting with an MF projection is one piece of the final output, sensor capture (strength of AA vs. non-AA, pixel size/density, well depth/noise/etc.) is another and post-capture processing follows. These are (imo) today's version of Camera/Negative/Print as a collective process that takes you toward final output.
In the Alt Forum, we are quite well versed in using different lenses with different drawing styles to get different looks, even within a given format (i.e. FF). We should be able to also recognize that the variability of other process(es) toward final output is "multi-step", even if we need to look back to the significance that others have pointed out at the interdependence of those steps. As such, we should recognize that applying our sharpening (et al) can be different and it isn't anything that is "unfair" or "unequal" or "cheating". It is the final output that is your real objective, not a laboratory comparative of the individual components of the process.
The "look" you get for your final image is going to be predicated by the interdependency of these things. Imo, starting with a projected image from MF glass is the first step in getting more of the MF "look". Starting with MF glass affords me the ability to produce more MF "look" than if I start with FF glass, even if I do use a different sharpening algorithm. This is where you may find that MF really opens things up a bit to the nuance and refinement that you can achieve in post as a product of the original projection transitions (see above @ trig).
Again, my objective here isn't to be comparative to shooting on a larger format. But, if you want to achieve more of the MF look on FF without incurring the $$$ to make the nominal jump to 44x33 (or $$$$$$$$ for larger), starting with an MF projected image and processing accordingly makes sense to me. For others, not so much. I just know that I've taken a liking to using M645 glass to generate what constitutes more of an MF look (smooth transition/tonality/well defined/well corrected) to me ... ymmv.