I tend to look at things in terms of percentages. With my original 7D I took pictures that are still on my wall. Then the 5DIII, really, that camera could take the vast majority of the pictures I wanted with primary liabilities being very occasional banding (I saw it maybe a half dozen times), and fps. The 5DIV, banding was gone, the noise was better, another fps and I did like the slight shift in color schemes. The % of images I could capture increased, marginally. The R5, it is funny, the eye-detect AF gets me a much higher % of keepers on birds, more fps (I am usually at 9 fps), it lets me AF on portions of the scene I couldn't before, and I have never run into a buffer issue like I did all the time on the previous cameras (I know Joanathan has w/ the R5). So, it speeds up my work, makes things easier, and does get me a few more images that I might have missed before, mostly due to eye-detect AF, fps, and lack of buffer issues.

But, if we are talking about an image that was already within the percentage I could successfully capture with the 7D which was already high...it's not like I am vastly more successful in capturing that scene with any of the successive cameras.

And I think that is a flaw with what Nigel did. I could have captured those scenes (woodland landscapes) with my original 7D without a problem. In fact, I have many woodland scenes. So, if I was to compare those successful images to the one captured by the 7D, it would have been splitting hairs between, as he mentioned.

Even the high MP, I did find it interesting that he had trouble discerning a difference most of the time. Yet, if I had an image of a Big Foot that was in 5% of my frame, extra MP would be crucial. In low light/higher ISO, then the larger sensor, better performance of modern sensors would be critical. What you need all depends on what you are trying to capture.