For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"
I keep seeing this or statements like this. "You can't tell the difference in the final product!" Yeah, no duh. You can't tell what tools were used to build the house you're living in either but that doesn't mean that all tools are the same and that they don't matter. I'm sure I could show you tons of pictures taken with 20D's or D90's and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from 5DIII's and D810's. The end product isn't how you judge the tool, its how you judge the craftsman/artist. Cameras are tools and the photos are what are produced by photographers. Any craftsman or artist would like to have the best tools available, not because it affects what you see in the final product, but because it makes the job easier. I don't understand why people seem to be willfully misunderstanding this. AF makes your job easier. Accurate TTL metering makes your job easier. Frame bursts and fast shutter speeds make your job easier. You can't see any of that in a picture, but it sure is nice to have, right?
One last thing about this interminable argument and then I'm out because it is pretty dumb at this point - have all of you that are saying that more DR isn't necessary, lifting shadows is for bad photogs, etc, actually manipulated the Exmor side by side with the Canon? RAWs have been made available here in several threads. I didn't care at all one way or another about this debate until I actually looked at the files. Its literally night and day. Once you see what the Exmor is capable of in post, the thought that immediately came to mind was "Holy S___ I wish my camera could do that!" Its nuts. I don't think its possible to really appreciate the difference unless you do it yourself.
I fall into the camp of, would I say no to more DR from my canon? No, of course not. I really doubt that any of those here who are saying it's not that big of a deal are like anti-DR. Would I take more, of course I would! But, that doesn't mean that I'm swearing at my screen with every file I edit, because the work I am doing doesn't demand super intense shadow lifting.
Honestly, if the pro DR crowd wasn't always on their soap box in every topic here, telling us all that we're just plain idiots if we don't see the truth of the holy grail in the exmor sensor andthat canon sensors are just plain so terrible that it would be a miracle to ever get a decent shot (some have said here in the past that the only thing canon files are good for is posting to social media@!!!). It's rather preachy, like religion. Sorry, not all of us need to push shadows 5 stops in post.
Like you said, you can't tell what tools were used to build the house your living in. If Canon sensors were as inferior as the pro DR folks would have us all believe then yes, you would be able to tell the difference. But, to continue the house metaphor, you give the same budget and material to 2 architects with differing styles of building - take it to the extreme, one ultra modern vs one specializing in Victorian style homes. the results would then be very different.
Sorry, but the sensor alone only matters in sensor tests. If we all only shot that still life setup we always see on image IQ tests then yeah, the sensor wins. but this is the real world and there are potentially thousands of factors that go into a final image - the sensor is only one of them....