OK. I've got 27" NEC Spectraview, do u think that a person with faulty eyes uses that kind of stuff? Doesn't really matter.
I judge only photos up to ISO 200. Take a closer look @ 100%.
Image 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13-is it sharp for you? That's a quality? Please don't be funny. Take a look on skin, clothes, eyes, lashes, hair. Than go for Nikon samples and have a comparison. It's not my eyes. Probably u see what u want, even having your eyes checked. I am not talking about small differences, I am talking about huge image quality gap.
A couple of quick points:
* Wait for real life pics to appear before passing judgement;
* IQ depends largely on the person behind the camera;
* Nikon samples ... no wildlife pics, no landscape pics bar one where the focus is on the flowers and not the background so I can't really compare ... ;
* Trees will be surely be softer than books stacked in a library;
* CANON Images do not mention whether shot in RAW or JPEG (notice the file size?) - though you may have a valid point why CANON would post basic JPEG as samples;
* The most valid comparison would come from shooting the same scene with both cameras otherwise it is comparing apples to oranges considering the variables involved;
* Bad marketing doesn't mean bad product - Hell Nikon's commercial in Bangkok was shot in part by a 5DMII http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3976.0.html;
* CANON may not be as stupid as you would like us to believe;
Being an ex-lawyer I could argue this to death but choose not to. I'm not one to slag off a product / person on the basis of 'samples' which are dependent on variables such as human beings behind the camera, choice of lens, choice of focal length, choice of focus point and what not.
Who am I to claim that 5DMIII is the best thing since sliced bread, but I can bet that it won't be as bad as you say. I notice you've slagged off the 5DMII to the extent of claiming that you stopped taking pics with it ... CMON ... with this prejudice, as I said, you are bound to see what you want to see ...