Anyway, Sony is absolutely king in sensor technology and Canon is way behind,
And yet zillions of professional photographers manage to take great photos with Canon cameras.
Can you imagine the photos they would take if they had access to a Canon version of this 7R?
I'm not exactly sure why I am even bothering to respond on this thread, as so much of the undeniable brand boosterism seems so "Junior High" to me. But, not to pick a fight here, but making professional images, in my 40 years of doing so for a vast array of very critical clients, has taught me that the formula that allows for good photography is:
1) 60% contribution comes from how hard you work at it - how much well directed energy you expend on the project, and how well prepared you are for it.
2) 30% contribution from both innate and trained talent or ability
3) 10% contribution from the gear you use, of which about 1/3, at most, of that figure results from which particular camera you are using, as opposed to any other one in the same general class you might have at hand.
Yes, there could be some real exception to my above assessment (sports, requiring very high FPS performance, is one such specialized exception that could differentiate cameras), but I find that the above is generally true. Therefore, I would defy anyone to find a consistent advantage to anyone producing excellent professional work with any particular camera of the same very general class.
A couple of months ago, I shot a very high-end corporate event for 3 days. Another fellow, a very competent photographer, shot the event as well for the same client. He used a Sony A7r3 with a raft of top end Sony glass. I used a Canon 5D4 and EOS R. My pictures looked considerably better than his. Why? Talent? Probably not. Gear? No. It was mostly my willingness to work harder, dragging around a bunch lighting gear and lighting the scenes more effectively. Hard work and practiced foresight was more important. A typical example of the reality of what makes professional work better or not.
If your gear is one sensor generation behind someone else's, it shouldn't matter more than what you had for breakfast that day. Now, if it's four generations behind, well than maybe you can make some case for the real, rather than imagined, effect it might have. Finally, you might say that, while what I say may be true, what if all the other factors are equal, except the camera? To that I simply say that all other things are never equal, because each of us are able to choose to make them whatever way you wish.
