I think that next time when someone starts a new thread how inadequate Canon is for his needs, he should also post an image where he will point what exactly he finds inadequate. Otherwise, how can one be convinced that 22 megapixels isn't enough for someone's but 36 megapixels is? So, I'd suggest do the following:
1. Start a new thread and post an image you took with your Canon gear.
2. Indicate what exactly you don't like in it. Is it the lack of your photographic skills which doesn't let you get great images, or it's a camera/lens inability to produce what you'd like to see?
3. Answer your own question, does a possible negligible difference in IQ justify investing into a new system?
A while ago, I myself was considering buying a Sony FF DSLR in addition to my Canon, just because of the Zeiss 135 1.8. But every time I had these thoughts, I was always thinking that Canon's 135 2.0, 85 1.2ii, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.2, Zeiss 100 2.0 makro and my favorite 200 2.0 are at least as good as 135 1.8.
Guys, I really think we should stop this thread. As I've said before, it's a personal decision to invest his own money into something or not, same as with cars, computers, smartphones, girls Some of us can see the logic in it, some cannot. If having an additional system makes you happy, go for it and enjoy your photographs! Although sometimes we're getting upset with Canon, I'm sure we'll be proud of its new products soon (but probably not this week)
I've seen other posters (esp. RLPhoto and PBD) who've been asking for much of the same - example of a shot where the Canon system screwed up as compared to Nikon ... the result ... none, nada.
Yes DR is important and I'd take 14 stops any day ... but to say it greatly limits shooting is just plain wrong.
There are several comparisons showing the benefits of great DR.
You can start to look at this video Nikon DX vs Canon APS-C: Dynamic Range (Part 2/3)
then you maybe understand
Highlights exposing so no clipping occurs=high contrast scene
Then you have a lot of examples at Dpreview, Luminous Landscape etc etc etc and even here by Mikael Risedal
If you have trouble to understand the benefits of great DR and no visible banding/pattern noise , look at the video again.
No one would say no to a good lens compared to a inferior one, likewise with a sensor
But you can offcourse always argue that you can not se any difference in a small picture.
Read carefully this. Nikon has better DR than canon, Everyone here knows that. Anyone who argues otherwise is out of their minds.
The real point is this, in actual shooting could you, not DXO, not camera labs or anyone else show in your photos that a canon cameras DR has failed you. If so, then make your point to switch immediately to nikon because canon is limiting your creativity. If you can't show so, don't complain here. We're talking real, solid photos not induced under-exposed crap but real photos.