Canon needs to know when they're being uncompetitive. They don't need a pat on the back when they produce a camera that lacks numerous key competitive features which a competitor is putting out.
Your viewpoint is that of the reviewer (as you state that you are). So you compare specs of the different brands. If you think a person should choose a camera by who has the best or most complete specs, by all means, do so. To consider those that disagree with you to be somehow Canon apologists - or that we make excuses - is being very disrespectful and makes the assumption that you are somehow a superior judge of what makes a good camera.
I have used or owned Sony, Canon, Nikon and Olympus cameras. I choose Canon (and also have an Olympus) not because of loyalty or some flawed sense of what I want in a camera. I know exactly what I want in a camera and choose accordingly.
As for competitive....
Most spec oriented reviewers seem to believe that Sony is "king" and that Canon is a disgrace for releasing the 6D II.. Yet a very respected member here spent a good amount of time using the A7 MIII and compared it to his 6D II and said,
"The A7M3 has much better autofocus TRACKING of certain subjects like human faces. There are some cool features like face registration and face preference, and of course, Eye AF is great for human subjects in well-lit conditions. But it is TERRIBLE in comparison to the 6DII in:
- Raw autofocus speed in good conditions
- Raw autofocus speed in dimly lit conditions
- Autofocus in very poor lighting where an AF illuminator is needed -- is excellent in 6DII and unusable in Sony
- Accuracy of spot selection in PDAF mode (the Sony is good for choosing the right point in accurate focus-magnified Autofocus in Contrast Detect mode, but then it's painfully slow)
- Continuous autofocus of a small subject by manually tracking it (such as a bird)
- Autofocus hunting in non-continuous AF modes
- Autofocus at smaller apertures (where the Sony uses crappy, stopped down autofocusing)
To me, every cool feature in the A7M3 is dwarfed by relatively poor autofocus. 20 steps of DR does nothing for me if my bird is blurry.
My own experience with Sony is with the A7 and A7 II. One underexposed by 1 stop, the other by a whopping 1 1/2 stops. I have owned perhaps 10 digital cameras and while there is often some variation in exposure, none were this far off. The kit lenses, while not cheap, were the worst lenses I have owned. There is some thought that this is not really the lenses fault, but due to the short flange distance and narrow mount. The color science of Sony is poor in my opinion. The ergonomics are awful in the opinion of many.
So what may be competitive for one photographer may not be the same for another. Of the 4 brands I have tried:
Color: I think Canon #1, Olympus #2. Sony last.
Ergonomics: Canon #1, Sony last.
Exposure accuracy: All good except Sony.
Lenses ( I am not able to afford lenses that cost thousands, so having medium priced lenses is a must) Canon #1.
Luckily, I haven't needed weather sealing, but recent well publicized tests gave high marks to all brands except Sony, which basically failed.
So, personally, I am glad that Canon is NOT putting out the features that some of their competitors are putting out! Features like poor AF, Poor color, poor ergonomics, poor lenses, poor exposure and poor weather sealing.
Obviously, folks will see this as just another Canon fanboy or apologist. I couldn't care less. I don't care which company sells the most or who is rated #1. I think each person should buy the camera that suits them best. I have no interest in promoting Canon, but just try to be fair and defend Canon, and their users, against the comments I see as unfair.