On the topic of image sharpness as a result of using autofocus, if the testing from dpreview is anything to go by then the AF in the 70D (using the dual-pixel thing) is better again than that in the 5D3 and that using live-view mode on either the 5D2 or 5D3 is better than traditional AF.
Again you intentionally miss the point, or fail to comprehend it. CDAF on a dSLR can't even keep up with a bride wedding-marching slowly down the aisle, much less any real action. PDAF on the 5DIII is vastly superior to the 5DII.
But I guess DRones don't shoot anything that moves very fast and/or always shoot at the hyperfocal distance, since you've already said you believe the AF improvements are irrelevant.
Then there are very few "loyal customers" as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that upgrades with every iteration from a manufacturer like "fan-bois" posting on the 'net do.
Then there are very few people who "believe low ISO DR is the only important feature" of a dSLR as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that makes camera choices based solely on low ISO DR like the "DRones" posting on the 'net do.
The thing is that if it had stayed Canon with the crippled bodies and best sensors then you'd be going on about the AF/body performance drones and telling everyone what a joke they are because obviously it's the sensor that counts since this is photography.
The argument Neuro is making is that sensor is not the sole, nor necessarily most important, thing that "counts" for photography. The argument Neuro (and myself) have often made is that other components matter more than the sensor for a majority of forms of photography. AF system, for example, often along with frame rate, are frequently the single most important things that count for IQ in a very broad range of types of photography...I mean, in anything that involves action, it doesn't matter if you have 12 stops or 14 stops of DR...if you can't nail focus, nail it perfectly, and nail it every time, then the most significant upgrade you could make would be to a camera with a better AF system.
That is most certainly NOT to say that more DR is meaningless. Of course not. DR is always useful in the circumstances where you can benefit from it. I personally can't wait for Canon to release a camera with improved low ISO read noise and more megapixels, because as far as I am concerned, when it comes to my landscape photography, sensor IS the single most important thing, and I always manually focus for it. But landscape photography accounts for a relatively small fraction of photography in general...sports and other forms of action photography, wedding photography, portrait/studio photography account for a much more significant portion of photography where nailing focus, as perfectly as possible as often as possible, is really the single most important thing. More DR is useful, more megapixels are useful, but focus...focus is truly essential.
It isn't like this argument hasn't been made clearly in the past, either. It is a relatively simple point, one that is difficult to mis
interpret, but one that seems to be frequently twisted and misrepresented. Sure, DR is useful, megapixels are useful, we always want more...but they are more often than not not
the most important thing to producing the best image quality. In this respect, Canon has served their customers well, and delivered on exactly what their customers asked for. As a result, Canon's business has continued to thrive, because, far short of making a crappy or inferior product...they make a phenomenal product that is superior in almost every respect.