Image quality is, to me, not very subjective. I'm only considering the results produced by the hardware used.
I'm not alone here with very high quality standards in that regard.
If you haven't run into such hardware limitations you're staying within your handicap. If you're using various workarounds "that have been around for a century" then you're accepting a compromise or exercising an artistic choice to work within those limitations.
Some of us have artistic choices that require better hardware with less limitations to fulfill. That's how progress happens.
Some people here react to this debate far too emotionally, with lots of passion and only a few facts.
The OP has not only shown examples, he's also provided his raw data and used a lot of his personal time and resources to do so, only to receive insult on top of (literal) injury.
Some of us have bolstered his findings with more examples.
Point is, these are facts, not opinions, about sensor system capabilities of Canon vs Sony.
It can be summarized as such:
- Canon is good enough
- Exmor is excellent
... in the one sensor metric where they differ substantially, low iso SNR and FPN.
+1 and bravo Aglet - beautifully summarized, objective post. Couldnt have said it better myself.
In the real world, the overall capability of a camera system includes various factors and compromises, not just DR (i.e. lenses, AF, frames per second, image stabilization, handling, build quality, skin tones, etc...) If you tabulate and score all these different factors, I think you will find that a 5DIII is a much more capable system than a A7r. Personally, I wouldn't trade the 5DIII's excellent AF system and lenses for a couple extra stops of DR.