Judging imaging technology by numbers will get one nowhere.
Why not shoot two pictures with each tool by yourself and reach your own conclusions?
Some of my favorite
quotes from Lord Kelvin:
"To measure is to know."
"If you can not measure it, you can not improve it."
"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." [PLA, vol. 1, "Electrical Units of Measurement", 1883-05-03]
"The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he would never be caught."
I would say that physical measurements can tell quite a lot about the performance of imaging systems. However, the final arbiter must come from examination of large prints. The studies should be double blind so as to avoid subjective impressions, perhaps embellished by proponents of the two systems.
I do not have access to the IQ250 but perhaps others can perform such testing, but I am not holding my breath for such a study to appear anytime soon. Of course, the PhaseOne proponents will say that the IQ blows away the D800e just as they previously stated that MFDBs have an additional 5 stops DR over FF 35 mm.
Regards,
Bill