Here’s a controversy that’s always popping up. “Do we really need those $40,000 professional cameras when a regular point and shoot takes almost indistinguishable pictures?” It’s often propagated in the “six megapixels is enough” argument, or a fraudulent comparision between two resized photos. Depending on the size of the originals, there is always a certain point they can be shrunk to at which they will appear equivalent. Sure, there’s a practical “but that’s what you see” aspect to the test that is compelling, but if you’re shooting in conditions that don’t play to the strengths of the expensive camera, it’s not really a fair comparison.
It’s no surprise that a G10 should be able to match a Hasselblad up to a certain point. The entire idea is that past that point the Hasselblad is superior. Printing 13×19 is not what Leafs and Leicas are for. From the perspective of their argument, a cell phone camera is equivalent to a Hasselblad — up to a size of 100×100 pixels. See how that works?