Oh, I'm not disputing the idea that Sonys can take good pictures, but so can my Canon kit, and until Sony gear lets me do things I simply can't do with Canon, all the noise about Sony's supposed wonderfulness is irrelevant (and frequently irritating and unwelcome when it's crammed down our throats on here) chatter.
I'm certainly not hitting the buffers of my gear's capabilities, and - something I mention here pretty regularly - in my opinion most photographers would get more bang-for-the-buck improvement in image quality if they simply used a different Raw converter: Lightroom for example, is not a particularly good converter (nasty democaising algorithm, by today's standards) and just getting to grips with (say) Photo Ninja (PN), which is far-and-away my favourite these days, would give them more than all of the supposed (and yet to be demonstrated, of course) "superiority" of Sony files.
For context: even with my 7D Mk II, I can get sharp, detailed, noiseless - and I do mean that literally - images at approaching 5-digit ISOs, by converting in PN: 3200 ISO is literally no different to 320 ISO in terms of the quality of the output.
And I'm north of 20,000 ISO before I even notice any noise from my 1D X files.
It's not just the noise reduction (which is edge-aware, incidentally, and beats anything else available, including the much-lauded PRIME NR in DxO/Photolab): PN's demosaicing algorithm is better than any other out there.
I was a beta-tester for DxO; I've beta tested for Phase One (Capture One Pro) and I was on the Adobe (Lightroom) Certified Professional (ACP) programme before I dropped Lightroom. NR and demosaicing algorithm testing has always been my thing, and Photo Ninja is just way better than any of them in terms of basic rendering quality.
So why would I be interested in Sony? I find myself wondering...