Thanks for the comments -
Heuristically a 25-29% increase seems about right. That may or may not make a difference to some. I hear all the time comments such as "I print 20x30 on my 5d and it is great!" - well I know it is printable - but if you lay down a 5d print - even a 16x20 and compared to a MF print - hands down the MF print wins. I'm comparing my 6x7 scans to 5d. I have a 34X28" MF print that has more detail than 5d's at16x20.
If somebody is printing only 8x10's or for web work - any resolution gain is irrelevant (except for additional cropping abilities.)
There are other improvements that I find really helpful in use. Larger screen, "my menu", multiple registers, live view - and remote shooting with live view, about 1 stop faster . .
Not a bad deal for $500 less than the original 5d.
I cleaned up the chandelier - a little side light. Leica 90/2apo @ f5.6 iso 100
ugh - and a bad pixel!
FOCUS is on the center stock - just as the other examples.
I don't think those two shots were made at the same aperture. Interpolation can't explain the difference in background blur, nor can very slight misfocus, nor can a different camera. Background blur is determined by focal length, aperture and subject distance. We can see that subject distance has remained the same by photogrammetry. The lens is the same, presumably, so only the aperture can explain the greater background blur in the 5D2 shot.
