At least someone is making sense on here!
LOL Kaster, I don't think Charlie is being a fan boy. But you can't really compare the two cameras. They have two different applications. Canon has been making cameras for sports and wildlife photography (not video) for years before it was even a thought to Sony. Don't get me wrong I personally own an a7s II and I love it. But I wouldn't shoot with that camera or an a7r ii in certain applications. Mainly the sonys are not built to take a beating. I was on set a week after the a7r ii came out and the set photographer using it accidentally got the strap caught around a door handle and the camera took a spill on the ground. Camera LCD was cracked and it wouldn't fire. It dropped about 4 feet. If that was a 1D you would have been able to pick it up and drop it again and still be able to shoot with it. Now imagine being on a football field and having a 250lb wide receiver run into the baby a7s ;-). Additionally, I personally know wildlife photogs with older versions of the 1D that have taken them to shoot in rainforests, without a water rig. And the camera still works. The Sonys would cry and fry after about 5 minute. Don't get me wrong (and again, I own an a7s ii!) the sonys are amazing little cameras. But they are not made to take the beating like a $6k 1D. People shooting indoors in semi safe environments like myself making 4K videos will use Sonys. Professional wildlife and sports photogs that consistently face harsh environments will use the 1Ds