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.
In the course of my work I come across a lot of people with cameras, and not many of those are true professionals. Some are just happy snappers, or tourists, or teenagers aspiring to a better camera. The odd one is a highly successful pro who buys £250,000 yachts with loose change ( seriously). ( zigzagzoe's got a long way to go to catch up).
Often these people will chat to me and I'll ask them why they chose Nikon, or Canon or Sony ( 'cos it's always one of these). I've never had one single person say they chose Nikon or Sony because of the extra DR that the sensor offers, or that it has more latitude and can lift shadows by five stops without seeing ugly noise. Not one. Ever.
So although those factors are the number one priority for some, generally very vocal people, and they will move away from Canon, I would suggest they are just a drop in the ocean compared with everyone else. So although I read on CR that Canon is using the same sensor fabrication that Noah had on his Ark, I'm really not sure that Canon are going to see this as a really high priority, especially given the fact that their sales are not declining in relation to Sonikon.
have issues with things like trying to focus in movie mode with a dslr for instance, and Canon have done something about that. I've been surprised by the number of 70Ds I've seen given that the camera hasn't been out that long. I would say that the vast amount of casual users are going to appreciate that more than lifting underexposed areas by five stops, and they are the people who are buying most of the cameras.
So what I'm coming round to say is I don't think the 7DII will have a radically different sensor fabrication, and I anticipate the howls of derision that are going to fill these pages from the usual sources.