I shot a D800E and a D810 alongside a Hasselblad H4D-40 for a couple years. As others have said, it's an apples to oranges comparison, and they each have their respective strengths. I never cared to do any "under the microscope" pixel-peeping comparisons between the two systems, however color and detail was great on the Hasselblad (as was dynamic range), but detail and dynamic range is also great on the Nikon. Prints with the Hasselblad look great, but then again so do the prints with the Nikon. Nikons [and other modern DSLRs] are also much more versatile (can't do milky way shots really with a CCD MF without a star tracker for example), with a wider lens selection, live view, better AF, more AF points (MF only has a single center AF point), and great high ISO performance. Older CCD MF cameras are somewhat cumbersome to use (slow, big and heavy, limited more or less to base ISO for optimal quality, limited AF, rear LCD resolution is bad, etc) compared to modern dSLRs, but shooting with the Hasselblad forced me to slow down and think about my shots more than I ever did with a dSLR, which I think definitely helped me develop as a photographer. It's not anything quantifiable, and it's personal preference for me, but I also got a lot more joy out of shooting the Hasselblad than I ever have with any Nikon/Sony/Fuji/etc. Also, something that other photographers always remarked when they used my Hasselblad was how gigantic the optical viewfinder is compared to the Nikons...it definitely provides for an immersive shooting experience. In short, I found my dSLR/mirrorless systems get more use, but my CCD MF experience was more rewarding. I also found for the types of shooting I liked to do (landscape), I needed both systems as the CCD MF couldn't do everything I needed it to (like milky way shots, for example).