I've done a lot of tests between the IQ 160 and IQ 140 vs the Nikon beast and yes there are differences but there not so vast as one would think either . Sure it comes in areas like color tonal range, micro contrast and some imaging look as well. MF looks a little less digital over the Nikon D800 but honestly the differences are there but its damn close and given the functionality factor of the Nikon system it can and is a viable tool. What I can't really understand is some folks just can't accept it as a viable image maker and these threads go on like its a religion and someone has to be right. They have certainly big differences within the systems and MF has special tools that the Nikon will NEVER have like a tech cam and its abilities. Im not sure any Nikon owner is saying hey MF we can kick your *** on any given day even on Sunday. No one is saying that but what we are saying is holy cow Nikon did damn good here and this is a viable tool that we enjoy shooting. At least I am and I like both systems and what they can do but what I will say and no one has brought this up anywhere on the planet at least yet . Nikon does need to go back in and work on there bodies algorythms. It is a little saturated and the color profile in the cam needs a little bit of a tweak. Basically get it in a more neutral state. Its a little punchy.
I just got the E version yesterday and i am going out in the morning and run some tests on it. I will say its hot as hell here and my motivation to go shoot in 112 heat is zilch. But i played golf in it this morning so I really have no good excuse either. LOL
BTW this comes from someone that has not had a lot of love for 35mm digital for a lot of years in either Nikon/Canon/Sony. Okay I loved my DMR just needed and extra 26 mpx for it. LOL