Likewise - a friend turned up with a 5Ds R and TS-E50 wondering if there was really much difference for the sorts of work we did (architecture/commercial)Why should anybody else do that if you don't?
I don't take anybody seriously who doesn't post before and after images to illustrate their points when they make assertions about the differences they get with specific cameras, lenses, software etc.
We went outside, took some identical shots and realised that Canon had done a splendid marketing job on quite a few 5Ds R purchasers and I'd saved ~£300
Sure, there were some small differences visible in some areas if you looked carefully, but probably more visible to those who thought there should be differences and went looking for them ;-) So yes, I did a bit of a write-up of it, and moved on with happily using the camera.
What was personally much more interesting was when I did a print based comparison test between my 1Ds/1Ds3/5Ds with each image produced at a range of sizes. This was before tools such as AI Gigapixel came out that I might choose for lower MP images. If anything, such software would make differences even less obvious. The reactions of 'real people' looking at the prints reminded me that much of the technical minutiae that agitate some photographers are utterly irrelevant to the people I create photos for.
This AA storm in a teacup reminds me of a warning I give when doing talks about colour management - that is to tread carefully if you are someone who paints behind their radiators. Radiators? I'm of the school that isn't bothered if you can't see it - If you'e of the school that finds that disconcerting, then be mindful of paying large amounts of attention to stuff that no-one else will see and still less be concerned with...