That is just sour grapes talking. The "pop" you talk about with 5Diii is its lack of DR. High DR images have flatter look and you can post-process (the horror!) to make it fit your levels.
Let me get the record straight. High DR does not a better photograph make. The DR should fit the artwork being created. Needing to post-process removes detail that would have been present if the scene was shot at a lower DR to begin with.
The DR needed in a picture varies with the picture. A lower DR means higher contrast and detail in the picture at a cost of restricting the range of bright to dark.
A painter knows that whatever the light range in stops, it needs to be represented graphically by a range from dark to bright.
For years photographers have extolled the virtues of taking photos on cloudy days or at the sweet light near sunrise or sunset. What does that result in... surprise, surpise... lowering the dynamic range.
A lower DR is not a technical problem with a picture anymore than slide film (lower DR) versus negative film (higher DR). For many photography needs, lower DR is needed. For many other photography needs, higher DR is needed.
Conclusion: one cannot say that a camera is "better" because of a difference in dynamic range. One can only say that the camera with a higher dynamic range is better for photos with a larger range of bright to dark, but not as good for photos in cloudy lighting. On the other hand, the camera with lower dynamic range is better for photos with a smaller range of bright to dark (like slide film). Both cameras still record 14 bits of information, so mathematically neither one of them is inferior as far as the total amount of information recorded in the RAW image.