It's ok. Canon will eventually produce a sensor that surpasses the competition. Not sure why only following a step or two behind the competition is acceptable, but likely the stellar glass keeps us holding on. I know it keeps me holding out hope for Canon, because I love the 100-400 II. You and I are not going to agree on this, so I'm putting my side of it to bed. I hope Canon can do better than the 5D4, and when they do – say a 45+mp AA-free body with better dynamic range and an RF 100-400 – I'll be there to buy it.
I wouldn't know either, ask Nikon, their D5 is far and away the worst performer when compared to the direct competition. Other than that D5 there is never more than a stop difference between the big three anywhere in the iso range on any of their three most comparable cameras. Less than a stop is not the same as
"a step or two".
If you look at the plots you will see Canon lead at some points of the DR scale, the 1DX MkII is better than the Sony or the Nikon between 160 and 600 iso, guess where I use my 1DX MkII most? So I could get a Nikon or Sony and get less sensor performance at my most used iso? At iso 320 the 5D MkIV outperforms both the Sony and the Nikon.
All nine cameras are within 1 stop of each other at all points on the iso range apart from the Nikon D5 that has comparatively bad performance at low iso, I think it is fair to say they are within spitting distance of each other, nobody has a clear advantage anywhere.
You saying I am in
"denial" is delusional, especially as I bring actual independent verifiable and repeatable evidence backing up my opinion.
Now you have been shown to be 100% wrong we can both put our sides to bed. Wait for whatever you want, I am, just don't come out with crass comments about Canon lagging behind in sensor performance, it isn't true, it isn't accurate, and it can be shown to be untrue.