Its utterly amazing to me that all of you are falling all over yourselves to say how worthless better sensors are when you all know full well you'd be crowing from the rooftops if this was a review of the 5DIV.
Subtract the messy corner shot and it might as well be a review of the 5D3. That is the only shot in the review that the 5D3 couldn't handle and do just as well.
Again, the confirmation bias lately among Exmor / Nikon / Sony fans is staggering.
If that 5 stop pushed photo comparison were flipped and the 5D3 shot looked like the D750 shot and vice versa, none of you would be saying "yeah, well I don't need all that DR, harumph". You'd be laughing at Sony/Nikon and calling them garbage sensors. The amount of denial on this forum is insane.
I can honestly say that if the situation were reversed and a Nikon fan asked me about it my evaluation would be the same: in the occasional extreme case it is valuable, but otherwise makes no difference and I would not switch brands over such a minor practical difference.
Those Exmor sensors are clearly better and in a way that would be extremely useful in a variety of shooting situations.
Then how come every comparison where you can see the difference is a contrived test? None of his pushed wedding shots would have been difficult on the 5D3. SOOC they are brighter then many of the pushed shots forum members here have posted in the past, including my 7D landscape comparison.
One last question: for those of you who think that the Sony sensor advantages are completely unnecessary - an opinion I have seen expressed over and over and over -
I don't think I've seen that exact opinion expressed. I think everyone agrees it can be beneficial. But there's a big difference between "occasionally helps" and "the 5D3 is only good for Facebook."