Oh dear there's going to be terrible anguish, spitting feathers and general sabre rattling if the 7DII doesn't have some sensor fabrication advance similar to the Exmor. But you know I'm not really sure how much pressure there is on Canon to catch up on this. It would seem that 99% of Canon users (generically speaking) are not bothered about that particular aspect of the sensor, including many well respected professionals; certainly judging by sales there are many other features which the buying public seem to want. Certainly the amount of people using variable ISO now surprises me, but on the other hand given the performance of a camera such as the 6D I suppose that shouldn't be surprising. And when using variable ISO who wants their DR to drop by a stop or two between ISO 100 and 800 ?
That is because those who are bothered by it will be/are moving to other manufacturers. If Canon are fine with bleeding off their market base, then sure, they won't care. If all depends on if the assumption that Canon are cool with losing market share to more progressive manufacturers is true or not.
I suspect they are not cool with that happening.
You skipped a step. No, Canon doesn't want to lose market share. But...you are assuming they are, in fact, losing market share. Where is your evidence to support that assumption? It seems equally if not more likely that those who are bothered by a ~2-stops less low ISO DR and switched from Canon to Nikon are outnumbered by those Nikon users hoping for the true replacement to the D700 that never came, and so bought a 5DIII instead.
As for 'more progressive manufacturers', your definition of progressive is almost as biased as DxO's Scores. DPAF...not progressive? Fluorite elements in supertele lenses, you'd think a progressive company like Nikon would have used them decades ago like Canon did...instead Nikon called them too fragile, only now they're touting the benefits of fluorite in their newest supertele lenses. Limiting the definitions of 'innovative' and 'progressive' to mean achieving more low ISO DR is typical of the biased DRivel posted by the crew of CR Forum DRones.
The average buyer does not give two hoots about any of those "technical" differences that have little impact on how they use their cameras. All they are interested in is having a capable imaging device that satisfies ALL of their needs.
For them the criteria are different. In the past they needed different cameras for stills and for video. In the past even though still cameras could shoot video, they were extremely clumsy doing it and generated less than satisfactory results. And since the average buyer was only going to invest in one expensive camera that was usually a stills camera.
Now things are different. There are cameras appearing on the market which are very capable shooting both stills and video. When the average buyer gets around to replacing his or her camera every 5 years or so, what do you thing they are going to choose, the Sony/Panasonic that does everything well, or the Canon/Nikon that only does one thing well?
There is a sea change under way in the industry. The highly specialized camera is going to become the province of professionals only. Successful consumer cameras are going to be the ones that shoot both stills and video at a high level. I see lots of people walking around with 5Ds and similar models, none of them are professional photographers, they are housewives and ordinary people. People who will want their cameras to shoot video as well. Right now most of them are not educated about what is going on in the industry because they already have their camera for now, but when it comes to replace those cameras they are going to look around to see what the competition is doing.
That is when Canon and Nikon are going to nose into the ground unless they radically change their attitude. They make most of their money off these ordinary people, and if they don't satisfy the needs of that market, the market will find someone else who will. The fact that Canon and Nikon sell lots of cameras today will not help them tomorrow.
Nikon is much more vulnerable to a market shift, if one did occur. Sony said they wanted to be number two in the market. Perhaps that is why Nikon is releasing so many cameras?
Sony does have some interesting cameras, and I do own an NEX. It has quirks, but takes great pictures. I believe that when Sony has a full lens lineup and fixes the rough edges around their UI and AF, Nikon and Canon could be under a lot of pressure to get new (semi)professional customers. New customers will not have a bias toward mirrorless and no investment in lenses.
That said, Canon definitely pisses me off with their "nickel and diming" the customer, but they aren't going anywhere. The RX-100 is the best camera in class, but we will see how that translates to other market segments.