I have to say that I was convinced until someone pointed out the upsampling of the image. I wonder why that is necessary.
It seems that if you wanted to do a fair comparison between two cameras you would take identical sample images, and then examine the images at various magnifications to see at what point, if any, the differences become noticeable.
Okay, I suppose the person making these tests was trying to show the difference between using the original file and creating an upsampled version at the same resolution. But, doesn't that become as much a test of upsampling software as it does the cameras?
Frankly, all this amateur pixel peeping, followed by flame wars on thread after thread, is getting a bit boring.
The more I read, the more convinced I become that the differences between comparable models of Canon and Nikon are minor and mainly involved very narrow functional and design nuances.
Unless you are in that tiny, tiny percentage of photographers for whom these differences actually matter it seems like there are two rational ways to decide. You can count up all your equipment and calculate the cost of switching or you can stick pictures of both cameras on the wall, blindfold yourself and then throw a dart at the wall, picking the camera that the dart comes closest to.
Either way, it's unlikely to affect your pictures in any meaningful or measurable fashion.