Hmmm, I still don't think that is a valid metric to measure both by. There are too many variables and analogies to make it a good comparison. There is a huuuuugggeee variable you didn't even talk about which is the electric grid. Huge amounts of land is taken up for this and it is very expensive to maintain. One of the reasons I want solar is because where I live (midwest US) falling trees/branches during wind storms and snow storms causes lots of down time.
I could go on about other things, but I still think comparing the land use of both of them is fairly ridiculous.
You've got long-distance transmission. The issue here isn't the power losses (actually fairly low and constant at about 6%), but the per-mile costs: $1m - $2m. Even on linear distance, that's not too bad, but if you're creating a situation where you've got to have high-capacity transmission all over the place (areal, not lineal density), it starts adding up. That's one of the costs the Solar Fucking Idiot Roadways people failed to take into account.
There are interconnects -- basically inverters and busses which feed back into the grid. I don't have a lot of details on this, but you're basically allocating some of this per specific facility of installed solar.
And then there's grid management. The issue with solar is that it's variable. That doesn't mean "unpredictable", as you actually can predict with very high accuracy 24-72 hours in advance (long enough to take actions) what your supply and demand will be. I've been commenting recently on G+ about the German Fraunhoffer Institute's solar energy who discusses high and low cost points for per MWh electrical costs. There were several of these in 2014, each tied to specific forecasting misses. Generally, either renewable power sources were over or under estimated, or demand was.
Storage, demand-side management, and other options might impose various costs of their own though.
I could go on about other things, but I still think comparing the land use of both of them is fairly ridiculous.