No, your original point in response to my offhanded remark was an analogy comparing the improvements in DR and resolution of the D800 to the development of camera autofocus systems and digital image sensors. In other words, you compared modest, incremental improvements to transformative changes in technology. That is a completely fallacious analogy.
The amount of improvement is irrelevant to the comparison, as the analogy could easily be filled with any type of imaging improvement. I chose the subjects I did because they were informative and historical.
Now, if you're referring to your second point, about downplaying technological improvements due to brand loyalty, I'll ask you to refrain from ascribing motives to my statements, that's presumptuous. I'm downplaying them because they're modest, incremental improvements. Are they beneficial? In some situations, certainly. Do they benefit the vast majority of photographers and the vast majority of shots they take, as is the case for AF and digital sensors? No.
I'm not so sure they are "modest". I'd say there is a significant ability in the Sony sensors in terms of rescuing images that Canon lacks, just as Canon's implementation of IS into their telephotos allowed wildlife photogs to get shots tripod mounted off-brand shooters could not.
And who knows, maybe the Sony sensors will allow for the end of tacky light painting in landscapes.
As far as the 1DX, it's an awesome camera, there's no reason to get defensive over it. There is no better camera for shooting action on this planet, period. It's just not the IQ leader.
And I vastly prefer Canon's colors, UI, handling and lens lineup, so it's not killing me as I wait for the sensor improvements. Are they "must haves" for me right now? No. But the improved DR is something I'm looking forward to.