Indeed, but an infinitesimally small percentage. Some people, like AlanF have a very deep understanding of gear and the best way of getting the optimal result in his very narrow niche speciality, just like Arash Hazeghi. Others I deeply respect have broader knowledge of lighting and camera formats and lenses and fully understand the technical aspects of how to achieve the images they have in mind, people like Gregory Heisler and Joe McNally. But there are many many more who produce stunning images regularly that seemingly have no technical understand at all, they just use whatever they have to it’s best advantage, people like Steve McCurry spring to mind, but there are countless examples everywhere from the top Instagram images and commercial photographers, to your local camera club.
I would disagree based a specific use case for me last weekend. I shoot indoor karate black belt gradings including sparring. Given the covid restrictions in Australia (pretty good relative to the rest of the world at the time and now basically unlimited but I disgress), I was much closer to the action than I would normally be as they were spread out but in a limited size hall. I couldn't use my RF70-200mm and had to use my EF24-105mm/4. The R5's croppability was fantastic with still lots of pixels with heavy cropping, the high frame rate got me better action shots on burst and the eye-AF was frankly amazing in the light conditions. I believe that IBIS also assisted getting sharper shots as the camera is consistently moving to find targets and blurry shots were rare. My keeper rate (even with more shots on burst) was much higher than with my 5Div setup. Even with the older glass, the shots were more than acceptably sharp. I didn't need to use cRAW. ~2100 shots on 128GB cards was fine.
Well, I'm a techhead yes. But I have a 70D with a 18-135 IS STM, and I happy with them. I shoot film with a very old yashica and a more older flexaret camera, but when this new R system becomes cheaper, my plans are an R6 with some fixes.
Maybe infinitesimally small, yes, but I have no idea how one would measure that. Your guess is as good as mine.
I've never interviewed anyone as to their technical knowledge, so how the heck would I know what my neighbor does and does not know? 
I'm sure Canon would be happy to know their marketing has been effective in convincing people like you that there is a significant leap in image quality between the RF vs EF 2.8L zoom trinity. I thank you for your patronage. Makes it easier for me to get my hands on those terrible, terrible EF lenses everybody is throwing away in the dustbins since they suddenly stopped being excellent lenses when the RF came out.
Show me an image that was taken this year that couldn’t have been taken, or wasn’t taken, last year.
Hey PBD, I believe he is just saying that the system is allowing him to get more shots he gets paid for easier with the new system. I still have my 5D Mark IV and my EF 85 1.4 and I can tell you that it can be a real hassle to get tack sharp eyes when wide open and as the sun is falling below the horizon. I always take enough photos to ensure I get THE shot I need but it’s frustrating how many shots are off by a few millimeters, so his point of having far more keepers with Eye AF could definitely be a real differentiator.
)Your point is technically correct. There is no image taken today that couldn't have been taken last year, or 10 years ago for that matter. Just watch one of those youtube videos where the pros do a portrait shoot with a cheap rig - in the end, the results look the same.
You can get a very good idea of peoples technical understand just in forums. Also I am a mentor at two camera clubs so speak to people about their photography knowledge more than most. I'd rate the number of people that understand the physics of what is going on as a tiny percentage of the people I speak to, even those that appear knowledgable invariably parrot some 'influencer' bullshit that doesn't actually make sense.Maybe infinitesimally small, yes, but I have no idea how one would measure that. Your guess is as good as mine.
At the large price premium and loss of ability to use TC's in the 70-200 f/2.8, worse overall IMO. Only trhe 24-70 f/2.8L IS interests me in the least.
