And in 6 months time, maybe that will be the debate here:
"Canon has more MP, better AF!"
"Sony has more DR, better IQ!"
... but the problem for lots of us will be that a FF sensor that performs the same as the 7D2 sensor won't represent anything new or better: there will be just more of it.
So more DR = better but more MP doesn't? That just betrays your personal preferences. Both can be better, both can be irrelevant, depending on needs.
Quantity (more MP) is not the same as quality (better MP)
You seem to have missed the point of what I said. Better isn't an objective term. For *some* people, having more pixels of even the same quality as today (however you measure it) is better.
So you're saying that if sensor A has measurably less noise and measurably more DR than sensor B then A isn't better than B from an objective point of view?
Look back - is that what I said? Not sure why I'm bothering, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt...
I am saying that if sensor A and sensor B have the SAME noise and DR but B has more megapixels, then a person wanting more pixels will call B "better".
If sensor C has fewer pixels, but better DR, noise etc than D, then someone wanting better DR and noise will choose C.
You see, you've qualified *your* definition of "better" by talking about DR and noise. That's good. But those are not the only measure of a sensor. The discussion here is about a putative new Canon sensor - if it has the same noise and DR as the current Canon sensors, but more pixels, this will be like the first example I've given above. People wanting more DR and lower noise won't see the appeal, but people satisfied with current DR and noise but wanting more pixels will. Is that clear enough? You may not believe those people exist, but they do.
PS we of course all want every aspect to improve - and they may, it remains to be seen. But even if they don't, some people will like the new camera. I imagine you won't be satisfied whatever they come out with.