The reasoning of downplaying the importance of DR to the point of 'We don't need a better DR sensor because canon doesn't have one' eludes me.
The reasoning doubtless eludes you because nobody's actually doing that.
More disingenuous "spinning" to push an agenda and score cheap points...
Don't paint me as a troll, I don't have any agenda to push, nor points to score. For what it's worth, I only shoot canon myself and have never really liked any nikon body I shot with.
The point I was making is that in a discussion like this one people seem to want to defend the fact that their brand is worse at some characteristic than a competing brand by dismissing the importance of that characteristic, like claiming that people who run into canon's shadow banding are bad photographers, or no one should ever need more DR.
Conversely, some people (not referring to you) take a single factor of camera system
performance, promote the idea that better performance in that factor is of such paramount importance that no other aspect of camera system
performance has relevance, and then proceed as if that one factor which is important to them is critical for everyone, so much so that lesser performance in that metric spells 'doom' for a particular brand.
Those same people sometimes obsess over trying to prove their point, and post their views rampantly, even in threads which have nothing to do with that issue.
Ultimately, people vote with their wallets. Sales figures and market share for the past few years are ample proof that while low ISO DR is of paramount importance to a small minority, a difference of a couple of stops on that one single metric doesn't have any meaningful impact on the buying decisions of the majority of photographers.