All the "behind the competition" comments strike me as a bit odd. We're mostly talking about situations and performance which:
1. skirt the shoals of situations 99.9% of us will never have to deal with - much less where incremental improvements in performance will make a real difference in getting the shot. and
2. are a thousand times better than what the top cameras in the world could manage even 3 years ago. And those were cameras that were more than sufficient for National Geographic, SI, Conde Nast, and pretty much everyone who was not using Medium format digital or bigger.
Would it be nice if Canon was pushing the envelope of what was capable? Sure. But I'm also be happy with stellar image quality (because that's what we have) and better glass in most instances than Nikon's offerings (with very few exceptions, the Nik 14-24/2.8 for instance). Most of this sounds like spec masturbation, and not grounded in actual shooting needs.