Barring a quantum leap that gives Canon sensors at least a 1 stop DR advantage over Nikon/Sony, I think this is the only thing Canon could do to leapfrog the 7D3 over the D500.
With the benefit of hindsight, it's a pity Canon didn't go for a 1.4x crop from the outset, for both the 1D and the traditional 'crop' market. A difference of exactly one stop has a nice symmetry to it. There could have been a small selection of L-class wide/standard lenses for 1.4x crop, as well as consumer-grade lenses similar to the ones which had always existed for the lower end of the film SLR market. Yes it would have made entry-level bodies more expensive, but non-pro digital SLRs were strictly for enthusiasts in the early days, so it's debatable how much difference another 20% on the cost of a 10D would actually have made. Meanwhile the 1D series could have cost less.
If only they'd put me in charge ;-)
Off topic, but interesting. I think in the days of the first and early digital Rebels, they were clamoring for all the consumer market share they could get, and that meant cutting costs wherever possible. This was probably wise, because now they have a solid base of consumers and prosumers hooked on Canon glass. If the least expensive Canon DSLRs were still out of reach for many people, then many more people would have simply started with Nikon or waited for something cheaper to come along like Mirrorless.
