I'm afraid that Nikon has us beat

Lack of pixels in most definitely NOT the limiting factor in my photographic performance, so I am perfectly happy with my 5D3, which offers way more technical ability than I am currently able to utilise. Currently, I benefit more from things like ease of use, high ISO performance and build quality (in bodies) while good glass does the rest. This leave me to think up good subjects.

As things stand, I am the weakest link!

EtherealZee wrote in post #14307325
Doesn't the Canon also have a 2x tele-converter built in? So, potentially a 400-800 F8...

Z...

I was talking about the Nikon 200-400mm.
The new Canon 200-400 f4 has a 1.4x teleconverter built in. But the lens hasn't been released yet and will probably be a lot more expensive.

Doesn't matter how many MP you have if you don't catch focus. I'd be more impresses if it was a BIF. I have a D800 and can take mega crops of a bird's eye and be sharp, assuming it isn't fast action.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

This is a bit farther out in case the question came up, 16m

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

A close up to compare to the starting image. Sorry, I can't tell you these are exactly the same crop, but an illustration of different lengths. I can post the originals if you like, I have to admit I don't really understand all that crop factor stuff.....Canon Rules!

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Here is an original & a cropped & processed version of a Least Sandpiper taken on May 5 with a 5D Mark III & a handheld 600mm f/4L & 1.4x teleconverter @ 1/1000 sec, f/6.3, ISO 1000

kootenayphotos wrote in post #14484126
Here is an original & a cropped & processed version of a Least Sandpiper taken on May 5 with a 5D Mark III & a handheld 600mm f/4L & 1.4x teleconverter @ 1/1000 sec, f/6.3, ISO 1000

Exactly. I think that big cropped shot of the Painted is all in all nice but even with each feather distinct, it is a good shot but not worth printing. I will stick with Canon.
Excellent shot by the way.

everyone knows its more about the glass than the body.

throw a cheap 55-200 on that d800 and the pics will be so so.
same as if you throw a cheap 75-300 on a 1d4.

Talent in photography is with the shooter.

MilesW wrote in post #14494962
Talent in photography is with the shooter.

True but good glass is unfortunately just as essential in wildlife photography.

It is also about where the shot is taken? Was it in a studio? I have seen many wildlife shots appear to be taken in the wild while in fact the bird is essentially captured and photo'd within a studio setting with perfect light etc...

the question might be then...looking at great shots, are they taken in the wild or in the studio...Nikon or Canon or whatever.

are you kidding me Steve?? Your work is just as good!!

He says however that the background has been blurred and the image sharpened. It's no use for comparasion when when post processing like this has been done, unless you're talking about the size of the crop itself, but I think everyone is just impressed by the detail it has.

Resolution number, yes. Everything else, no. All nikon fans know it and that is why they are always taking jabs at the Canon group. They can't stand their inferiority but to change brands would only affirm and publicize their bad choice in selecting nikon.