And yet there is negligible to no difference between the 6D Mark II, The 5D Mark IV, and the Sony α7R III in terms of S/N ratio, color sensitivity, and tonal range. What good is the extra DR in such a case except for pulling the details off the bottom of a leaf in the shadows in the corner of a 5-stop underexposed image?
I just don't buy that the extra DR is worth that much in a usability sense for real world work when there's no difference in the other benchmarks. It seems more to me like a sensor/processing pipeline that has been gamed to do well on one test.
Then there's the whole ergonomic and ruggedness/dependability shortcomings of the Sony cameras. That's OK for even advanced hobbiasts/enthusiasts, but not so much for working pros who do the type of work where they don't get to set their own shooting schedule. Sometimes consistency and reliability (and battery life that lasts for days) are worth more than a couple of stops of DR when the user has a clue how to properly expose an image to start with.
I'm of the opinion that as the s/n ratio seems to be on par with the 5dmk4 and the sony, then Canon may have left something out, or the data pipeline is adding noise where it shouldn't.
The extra dynamic range, in my cases, often means I can get photos without regular banding in timelapses; sometimes this will occur on the 6d just when setting the lens corrections on the 16-35 f4 l lens, as an example.
It really doesn't have to be only in situations where the photo has been underexposed greatly.
For your uses, you may find that it doesn't have any significant impact, and that's completely fine, but for others (and definitely for me), those 2.5 stops make a huge difference.
Ergonomics, that's another discussion. I do agree that Sony still have more improvements to make here. I find the ergos work well for me, but I'm usually on a tripod. A bit less of a factor in my case