Well, there is a difference in requirements for photographing objects with leaves as the background, where DR is never a problem, and landscape photography where high dynamic range is very much appreciated.
In a few instances, the difference can be seen.
But in most, I think don't think so.
That is why ND Grads are very basic filters for landscape photography. They are especially useful for darkening skies. And they are used very frequently. Sony sensors like in the D810, are able to get a scene right without the use of those filters, as heir dynamic range covers it, most of the time.
That is a nice advancement, like I said, but is no reason to dump a camera system ... especially when using filters & bracketing is also possible.
Now you, Jack are very keen on nature photography, and dynamic range is obviously no the point where you feel your camera is lacking. For you AF, and fast usability is of much more importance.
Actually, with macro, I am needing ultimate resolution, which is why I am still considering the D810 ... but will be waiting until March/April to make my decision. I honestly don't use AF that much, but do sometimes. Ultimate resolution is what I am after ... yet I am constantly amazed by images posted by people with D300s, 7Ds, 5Ds, etc. I have seen some great images with the D810 also, as well as one person who just can't take good macro shots, even with a D810.
That is not splitting hairs, but facts. Can't you live with the fact, that there are differences in systems, and at the given moment Canon is not on the lead in terms of sensor design? There is lots of guys here, who know a lot about sensors technology and you may find will a lot of post concerning the matter. Maybe, Canon will come up tomorrow with a new shining 50MP sensor which will satisfy those who demand more DR. But as of today there is none.
Well, speaking of "splitting hairs," this guy takes
ultra-close macro images with the lowly 7D that do just that. Maybe the images might be a tad better with a D810, but they are still amazing with the (outdated) equipment the guy is using right now. Does he really need to run out and buy "another camera" to make his images "more amazing"
I don't think so.
This is what Diglloyd writes when testing the 5DMKIII:
To see streaking pattern noise at ISO 100 is disturbing for a $3500 camera, but this example shows clearly that the Canon 5D Mark III made little progress in this regard over its predecessor.
Uniform grain-like noise is not objectionable. But any kind of pattern noise is disturbing, and greatly reduces the versatility of image making.
To have pattern/streaking noise at ISO 100 shows that the camera has poor quality electronics. Since the Canon 5DM3 costs $1000 more than the 5DM2 and has had 3 years for development of higher sensor quality, this is astonishing.
Cheers
Honestly, I never really thought much of Diglloyd's reviews. I remember one article where he said that the Micro-Nikkor 200 "couldn't have" good bokeh because it's only f/4, when most consider the lens to have stellar bokeh. I know what he meant, but there is more to exceptional bokeh than just the ability to get down to f/2.0, and the fact he didn't even test it (but just "surmised" it) really was a turnoff as to the credibility of the review.
Finally, his Nikon-biased opinion of the Canon 5D Mark III apparently doesn't hamper the creative beauty of people who actually make their living creating stellar images, like
Art Wolfe Reading Diglloyd's review, one wouldn't think that possible.
The fact that many talented photographers actually use the 5D MkIII in the real world, and to beautiful effect, pretty much debunks the article ...
Like I said, with the level ALL top cameras are able to achieve these days, I think
being at these "right places" at "the right time" has more of an affect on great imagery than "which modern high-end camera" you happened to bring.
Jack