If it doesn't diminish the 1Ds3 in any way, then it must diminish the Canon lenses you are using. However, if the greater detail you see in the 22mp Aptus back is subtle and of pixel-peeping proportions, then it could simply be due its lack of an AA filter.
I'm a rational person. I have no need to give emotional support or allegiance to any particular brand or format of camera. I'm just really curious as to why in one situation a sensor that's double the area of another with the same pixel count produces a more detailed image with a greater sense of reality and 3-dimensionality (MFDBs compared with 35mm) and yet in another situation where a sensor is 4x the area (35mm compared with the Olympus 4/3rds system) no-one seems to mention such attributes of the larger sensor.
It is however sometimes admitted by owners of the Olympus 4/3rds system that dynamic range is not quite as great as in the larger 35mm format.
The other problem I have with this idea that the larger sensor itself results in this greater detail and sense of reality etc., is that no-one seems to be able to demonstrate it with properly conducted tests where FoV and DoF are matched and the best lenses are used with both formats.
It all seems mighty strange to me.
I have no time to do the test but I can assure you that despite of what you hear from other guys, the girls on late night TV are always right when they say that size DOES MATTER.
There is the magic that only large or at leat medium size provides that can not be duplicated with small format regardless of one's skills ( I meant PShop skills).
Here are my three kids practicing with the right size camera. It still shoots and takes great pictures.
Lancaster 12"x15" serial numer#2, AD1882