My Canon kit - It works. It does what I need it to do. It never fails me. Gets the job done....every....single....time.
Having now owned and played with multiple systems from different companies, I am truly learning the value of the Canon ecosystem.
With as much chatter going on as there is about all of Canon's deficiencies and shortcomings, I felt as though it would be refreshing to bring a different view and experience to the table. Sorry if this has already been stated elsewhere, but this is my two cents that I've come to realize as of late.
Without fail, I have never gotten frustrated with the functionality of my kit to the point where I felt that something else could serve me better in every facet of my shooting.
Having now owned an A7r rig, multiple modern Fuji rigs, and played with a Nikon rig, I have come to the conclusion that nothing really beats the overall functionality, completeness, and usability of my Canon kit.
Yes yes, I know. Canon Fanboy, right? Wrong. If that were the case, I wouldn't have spent my last 6-8k on trying out other company's offerings. To a fanboy, that is blasphemy.
Anyhow, I have found that comparing IQ between all of the rigs, I am generally splitting hairs. There are a finite number of instances where I actually look at an image and say "wow, I am so glad I own ABCD rig because the images are so much better than the rest."
The differences for me at least, are in functionality and feature set....not IQ. Sure, IQ on some levels can be slightly improved with my Canon rig. But assuming I properly expose (or get close) and properly compose (or get close), there is nothing IQ-wise that my Canon rig cannot accomplish.
The only reasons left when I really think about why it is I enjoy using other rigs are due to feature sets. For instance, A7r, allows me to use my TSE lenses with a very good manual focusing aid feature set. A smaller plus would be the increase in resolution and slight bump in DR (not as important to me). The xt-1 is super compact for what it brings to the table and has an even better manual focusing aid feature set (prefer it for all my old lenses that do not require electronic communication with the body). However, that's where the positives end for me when comparing them to my Canon DSLR.
For me, the autofocus is still way too unreliable and slow on every mirrorless camera I have owned or used. Battery life has been consistently atrocious across the board. Ergonomics are almost acceptable at best. And the worst part? The ecosystems range from barely starting to develop, or mildly developed and still lacking significantly. All of these things taken together make for systems that involve a lot of compromise. It makes them very niche/specific use tools.
This brings me back to my original point, the Canon rig that never fails. Slight shortcomings, I will admit, are present. However, as a general rule in my experience, it has always gotten the job done and I have never felt it lacking to the point where I looked to another system and felt that I could do better.
The one truth I have found, the grass is almost never greener....
100%. Truth is the real highly paid pros I know all shoot Canon and think even Sigma lenses would be insane (though they appreciate Nikon, if no other manufacturers, too).
Job done well enough is a pay check.
Canon is conservative.
Canon shooters are conservative.
Pros are conservative: good enough is still a paycheck.
I use a 5D Mark III and a C100 and love them both, but if I cared for pure specs over reliability and ease of use I'd have long since abandoned them.
But I don't.