There is no need to be insulting. You presented two pictures with different white balance. That is not sufficient to prove that the two sensors have different qualities, it just proves that one camera's white balance is better calibrated than the other.
It has nothing to do with white balance.
They were both white balanced on the same spot in post (while shot under the same conditions as well).
What actually matters and what you are seeing is that the Nikon's color fidelity is dogshite compared to the Leaf's. Both files are more or less as imported, except for white balance setting and minor tweaks. You spend time editing the Nikon file to bring it close to the Leaf's. What you don't remember is that the Leaf file looked that way on import. It looked "Right". What if I have to shoot another gig with the Nikon? Shoot a reference image with the Leaf and then edit the Nikon to look like it?
Even in your edited file, the Nikon is flatter and the Leaf has dimensionality, BTW.
Furthermore, if you see the images in full quality, at proper resolution, you'll see a LOT more tonal variations in the leaf file that are simply lost in the Nikon file. I've spent enough time and shot enough files with both to know that this is real and not placebo.
And don't forget, you're making your remarks based on what was originally a 207MB TIFF, that was downsampled to 2MB PNG that Facebook eventually murdered into a 200kb-something JPG. If you see a "Blown highlight", call Mark Zuckerberg. My Histogram is just fine.
It's all-too-common for someone to post a comparison on the net, only for 15 different "Well informed" opinions to come out of nowhere about how this should have been done this way and that should have been done that way. Well, here's a simple solution. Get your own back, get your own 35mm DSLR, rent a studio, hire a model, set your own lights, shoot something and prove me wrong. Forgive me for not paying much heed for anything less than that.
I won't even go into the spectrum analysis-paralysis whatever part.
