there is not one single image that has been taken with an R5 that hasn't been taken before with much more modest equipment.
Or, nobody should let their inability to pay over $11,000 for a body and three 2.8 zooms limit your creativity their because MILC are the 'thing' at the moment.
Maybe you could make your claim a little less absolute and less people would take issue with it.
You make a 'for all' statement, and since of course the R5 has the highest dynamic range of any current FF camera, your statement is flat out wrong as nobody will have taken a 45 MP image with 11.85 stops of PDR in a single shot with more modest equipment.
I know that is entirely not what you are claiming though! But the way you phrase it gives the appearance of belittling the improvement people see in their own experiences with the R5.
Or maybe you have to explain better what it means for an image to not be 'take-able'. With a lower framerates, the odds of getting the most desired image in a fast action sequence drop. So, for this most desired image to be taken, luck is required. So it absolutely is possible to take that image, just not as likely as with a higher framerate body.
Similarly, better AF and better lenses give the modern RF system bodies and edge in probability compared to older gear. Comparing a 5D IV with the EF 50 mm 1.2 vs R5 with the RF 50 mm 1.2 for example, it is probably possible to get a sharp image from a moving subject with the EF combination, but it is less likely than with the RF.
Which is what you are saying by acknowledging the keeper rate. I think here it simply comes down to how you define being able to take an image differently than others. If the R5 produces more keepers than an older model, that necessarily has to mean the older model was unable to take as many pictures that qualify as worthy pictures. So the older one was unable to take some.
I think what you really are asking for is a new type of photography that was not just made easier through newer gear, but straight up made possible, right? One may argue that hand held long exposure photography is maybe an example for this, but even here you could always get lucky with in-lens IS only in the past and get nicely blurred waterfalls or light trails with a wide angle lens hand held.
I don't think you'll find many people claiming that newer bodies pave the road to types of photography that were impossible to capture previously.