To begin with, Nikonians may rejoice now they have a 3000$ 36MP camera instead of a 8000$ 24MP one. I guess that is without doubt a good thing.
The other impression I have is that the test images are quite close. An assumption may be that they would be even closer in print.
In my view, this is a very valid test. There are a few factors favoring the Hassy but there may be other factors favoring the D8000. I wouldn't call this a scientific test. In a scientific test we try to eliminate as many variables as possible. A scientific test also needs to be reproducible, therefore dollar bills and color checkers are used instead of young ladies. The tests that DPReview and ImagingResource do are more scientific, they ought to be for they do testing for living.
To me it seems that the Nikon D800/E is a very interesting alternative to low end MF. Little doubt that better image quality can be achieved with high end digital, like the IQ180, if that equipment is put to perfect use. In addition, digital backs have a lot of flexibility.
The test was well done, but it is important that the test not be considered a comparison between the D800 and Hasselblad H4D40.
The lens is very important. As I posted before the 105mm 2.8G is not the best lens to use for this comparison.(correction) ErikKaffehr
examples processing both files the same way shows that the cameras are pretty much indistinguishable. If the test were re done with the Nikon 85mm 1.4G and using equivalent apertures the Nikon d800 would look better than with the 105 2.8G
Take a look again at how evident the difference between the 105mm 2.8G and the 85mm 1.4G is if you consider how close the test came out.
I bring this up because the results of the test were so close.
But it's also important to keep in mind that the 85mm 1.4G will also give you bokeh and shallow depth of field that the Hasselblad (Fuji) lens cannot match.
Then on top of that there is the superior flexibility, reliability and handling of a top of the line DSLR system.
Reliability is just without comparison especially when you consider that you can buy a back up of each lens and camera and still come out
at less than half the expenditure.
I'm no "Nikonian" or gear fan. To me it's all about the image and when I want certain results I will still use 8x10 film or larger medium fornat film, even if it is impractical.
I have come to the conclusion that there is no advantage to using MF digital over a D800 and D800E combination.
The only time there would be a difference and only between an IQ180 and a D800 is for prints of 60x40 inches
AND YOU WILL BE VIEWING PARTS OF THE IMAGE CLOSE UP. By that I do not mean looking at a full composition from a normal viewing distance.
Also there will be some scientific applications where pixel peeping is done where the increase in resolution is needed.
But in conclusion let me say that if you love gear and like to romanticize about medium format there is nothing wrong with that.
I'm all for enthusiasts..... hey people buy Ferrari's in California where the speed limit is 65 mph and drive around in a cramped car with limited viability.... for fun.
Don't get me wrong.... the price of pro cameras... D800 or Hasselblad would cost way more to pros if it were not for the enthusiasts with deep pockets that keep sales higher.
It is just important that enthusiasts don't sway the decisions new photographers need to make.
Another important point is that companies like Nikon and Canon will invest more than Hasselblad or Phase One.
This is for two reasons. First of all the sheer size of the companies, but also because Canon and Nikon make so many other
lower end cameras and their sales are very influenced buy the prestige of their flagship cameras.