It is nothing but a bunch of gearhead whiners crying because "theirs" ain't the biggest this week.
I think it is more that people look at the improvements Nikon has delivered and the price point at which they have delivered and when they look at Canon they're left thinking "WTF am I buying Canon?"
Ask yourself this: have you ever been able to walk through a gallery and point out which camera shot which photo? If the stuff was as bad as some of these idiots claim, nobody would use it.
Most of the time you don't need to because it is written underneath the artwork.
Something else you might want to ask yourself: If this Sony technology is such a "game changer" why hasn't the game changed? Where are the stunning examples of what can be done? Why do we continue to see shots of the back of lens caps, mediocre landscape shots with shadows lifted 5 stops just to prove a point? Where are the game changing photographs from this so-called game changing technology?
To pick one gallery, that exhibiting the work of the principal behind www.luminous-landscape.com
, I imagine that the work being displayed has changed over time from being dominated by Canon sourced material to Sony/Nikon material if what he displays on the web is anything to go buy (and the fact that he no longer owns any Canon DSLRs.) Information about his gallery is at:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/about/gallery.shtml
If you read enough of the essays from professional photographers that write for the above mentioned website then you start to realise that Canon no longer features like it used to as a tool used by artists, never mind photojournalists, etc.