TBH I'm not saying I agree with that article, just made for some interesting reading so thought I'd share it.
Most modern sensors are more than good enough, so agree it's more about lenses. In an ideal world Canon would get at least an extra stop DR, but otherwise they are top notch. Going back to the lenses, the trouble with the EOS R is that the lenses are CRAZY expensive. Would anyone choose these over the adapter and EF lenses?
There is some video footage on youtube of shooting with the R and the auto focus speed looks incredible. Not that DSLR's from any manufacturer is lacking in this respect, but photography is well into the realms of diminishing returns these days, so I can see that this would be appealing to people. I doubt it will be too long before we have comparisons of native R or Z lenses against their adapted counterparts and we will know for sure.
I agree with the general point that the standards are so high now that features are becoming the way most people differentiate between cameras/systems. Adding a lens mounted control ring, using adapter space to add rear variable ND or polarizing filters, new touch interface etc, rather than focusing on incremental spec bumps shows they are not interested in (or capable of?) winning the spec sheet battle against the likes of Sony.
If I was buying this year, rather than last year, the shot at a 5D4 sensor in a 6D2 (ish) priced camera would be pretty seriously considered. Even if it meant using adapted glass for the foreseeable.
Sorry, I wasn't being serious - I thought it was a good article and one of the few that actually addresses the issues rather than trying to ignore or justify them.
John
Bang on.
That'll teach me to skim read, I get the gist of your post now 
From all I've read the R is looking like the 6D's EVIL stepbrother which comes with the 5DIV sensor (with perhaps a few tweaks of improvement).
Ignoring the video side of things for still photography, and especially landscape still photography which was the original 6D strength, I think the R has the potential to do a good job in a specific field like landscape or macro photography. If using (adapted) Canon lenses, its main mirror less alternative is the Sony A7III using the same lenses. But where the R seems to win out over the Sony A7III is the lens mount adaptor.
The Canon EF-->R adapter has the benefit of Canon having the necessary info for both sides of the I/O process. The likes of Metabones, now on it's 5th iteration and still not doing the job perfectly (allegedly), has to convert Sony body to lens communication protocols to Canon ones (and vice versa).AFAIK Metabones knows the Sony protocols but has to reverse engineer the Canon ones (as Canon will not share them). Results with some lenses are apparently still not without issues like locking up the body and failures to AF.
Continuing on this line of thought a Canon EF lens on a Canon adaptor to a R body should perform better than a Canon EF lens on a third party adaptor to a A7III body. Looking at list prices from non grey market sellers a Canon R with free basic adaptor is £2349 vs an A7III at £1999 plus £380 for a Metabones Mk V adaptor or £2379. Pointless saying the Sony can be got cheaper from grey when the same will apply for Canon (just the prices are not yet known)
For around the same money with the Canon you get a better handling body (with likely a familiar menu system) and a good EVF vs a somewhat cramped body with a million fewer pixel EVF and a convoluted and arcane menu system The grip is too small. The screen and EVF too mediocre. The buttons and dials are too close together....in some ways Sony cameras remain very mediocre if you ignore the specs sheet...Get rid of the current menu system entirely. Quotes from 4 way battle - rating the chances of Panasonic vs Canon vs Nikon vs Sony full frame mirrorless systems - EOSHD, the site which castigated the R for video in the link given in post #31.
On DXO specs the A7III has between <0.5 to 1 stop better DR but looses out on all the stuff DPP can do to improve Canon lenses when shot on a Canon body (I'm presuming the same will apply for adapted EF to R lenses too).
So for someone with an EF lens collection who doesn't need high fps, IBIS, Eye AF or focus tracking which is the best choice: Canon R or Sony A7III?
There’s no doubt the Canon will produce excellent images, and for some it will be a better choice than the Sony for reasons you state. However there’s no denying that in terms of functionality and features the EOS R is behind the competition. I think 3fps is poor regardless of the competition though.
I'm coming from a 6D used mostly in single shot mode, except for exposure bracketing (for that the R will do approx 8fps which seems adequate enough).
I'll deny though that a 2m pixel EVF is better than a 3m one. If I remember correctly you said the A7III EVF is not as good as the A7RIII one. On paper the R EVF has the same spec as the A7RIII...
fps doesn't matter for those that don't use it obviously, but whether you use it or not it's not good. 8fps is with exposure lock and no AF. 5fps with exposure changes and AF-C (speed priority) and 3fps with exposure changes and AF-C (tracking priority). So basically if you want to use burst mode whilst tracking and want a half decent hit rate you're limited to 3fps.
On the grand scheme of things it's not going to be a big deal for a lot of people, neither is the single card slot or crippled video. However, my gripe is that you're paying £2349 for this privilege. Yes it will take great photos, yes it will undoubtedly outsell Sony and Nikon, but I just struggle to see where the money's going.
Yes the A7Riii EVF is superb, and so I would expect the Canon to be too. However, the number of pixels aren't the be all and end all, there's the refresh rate, colour reproduction, contrast etc. I'm sure it will be good though.
When a feature is not used or needed it's immaterial if it's not as good as another camera's same feature. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?....
Better £2349 for a 5DIV sensor on an R than £3249 for a 5DIV sensor on a 5DIV 
Within 6-9 months it will be below £2K retail and much less on the grey market too.
Premium build mag alloy shell on a mag alloy body doesn't come cheap...
The build quality and grip shape are immediately impressive when you first pick up the EOS R. It's built with a magnesium alloy shell over a magnesium alloy body and it has a real sense of quality to it....while the build feels premium The Canon EOS R isn't a mirrorless 5D IV, but it's a start
Neither does a decent EVF and rear LCD.
The EOS R's viewfinder is really nice, offering a comparable (if not quite equal) clarity and perceptual resolution to the excellent (and similarly spec'd) finder in Nikon's Z7 and Z6.
The EOS R's rear LCD also looks very nice indeed, offering a resolution of 2.1 million dots, with touch sensitivity. In terms of resolution this almost (but not quite) matches the benchmark panels on the back of the Nikon D500/850/D5 and should look crisper than the 1.6 million-dot LCD on the back of the EOS 5D IV.
Add to that the flippy screen (USP for a FF mirrorless?) and totalling all the above up that's a large chunk of the money accounted for. And the cherry on top is an extra screw (5 vs 4) on the body lens mount compared to the 5DIV...