I have had the Adobe Creative Cloud Photography subscription since I got the 5D and I shoot everything in RAW. It just seems that I have to do a lot of editing just to get some colour into everything. Maybe I should explore different editing styles rather than the one I've been using for years.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I'll make sure I digest it properly.
When I bought the 5D, I was um'ing and ar'ing over the Nixon D7(hundred and something) and from what I heard, other brands were leaving Canon behind with sensor technology. So are Sony sensors better than Canon's now?
Just as an example, here is a before (RAW file exported to JPG with no editing) and after editing (same export settings). Apart from the fact that I can never seem to hold a camera straight  I just wonder if newer cameras will give me something better straight out of the camera. I know the 5D is a solid camera though and so is used for a reason by many people, so maybe everyone is going to tell me there is nothing wrong 
Before:
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/3e3a0806_before-jpg.1130282/
After:
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/3e3a0806_after-jpg.1130281/
Are you using Adobe RGB or srgb in the camera?
The former will often produce flat .jpgs which need a boost. The latter are better out of the camera for viewing on an srgb monitor. If doing Raw .jpg the raw can be later developed as Adobe RGB etc as it doesn't have a colour space assigned to it so you get an editable raw and better .jpgs which can be used without further processing.
Adobe RGB Versus sRGB Color Space - Which Should You Choose?
With the photos you show the difference may be down to dynamic range of the 5DIII sensor. It's low by modern standards. Or just down to you having exposed for the highlights leaving the shadows needing a boost in editing. A sensor with better dynamic range might allow you to expose more for the darker area at the bottom without the risk of blowing out the highlights in the sky. What does the histogram of the unedited raw file look like compared to the edited one?
Could be my monitor but I think you've gone too far in the edited version and have lost the upper part of the image, it's flatter, too light (almost overexposed) and you've lost the blacks/contrast hence the flatness.
Do you uses brushes/graduated mask to pick out the areas you were lightening in the bottom or just use global sliders like shadows on all of the image?
Just had a look and they were exported using sRGB.
Before:
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/screenshot-2019-03-17-at-19-32-43-png.1130320/
After:
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/screenshot-2019-03-17-at-19-33-03-png.1130321/
Going by the above histograms, I did overcook it in post.
I would say that I use sliders 99% of the time but I have used graduated masks sometimes. For example where there is a clear separation of the sky and the exposure needs a tweak from the rest of the image.
I'm ashamed to admit this, but I basically push the highlights all the way down and the shadows all the way up. Then tweak the whites, blacks and exposure. As above, I should probably look at other methods.
Worth looking at some tutorials?Personally, I doubt a new camera is going to be a magic solution and likely to be a disappointment.
For minimum post processing, in camera jpeg is the way to go.The 5DM3 has several jpeg presets which you can adjust, you can also create your own profile on the computer and download to the camera, and you can further adjust with white balance adjustments in camera.It takes a bit more time to setup, however well worth it in time saved afterwards, especially for events etc where you are taking lots of pictures.Getty for example only work in jpeg at events where I’ve seen them working.
Yes, the highlights did look too far down and shadows too up.
In Lightroom I'd have either put a graduated masks across the images to take in the darker sides of the streetand then just lighten the shadows etc in that area or paint a mask to do same with a lot of feathering on the brush. Probably the first since Lightroom got editable graduated filter/masks. That and leave the highlights mostly alone for the top of the photo.
I meant the in camera setting for srgb or Adobe RGB.
If you find a lot of your .jpgs look a bit crap and you have the camera on Adobe RGB, try taking some raw .jpg with camera set on srgb. Or vice versa and seeing if there is any preferable difference between them.
Back to the original question here’s my thoughts on potentially smaller FF systems. The are my opinions and YMMV.
A7 series. The most established mirrorless FF system, great cameras and lenses but plagued by bad ergonomics, not enough space between the grip and lens, bad colour rendering without plenty of PP tweaking and horrible menus. Also, I’m not sure the weather sealing is top notch.
Canon EOS R system. Great cameras, but a very limited lens choice unless using adapters. No real ‘travel lens’ that will save you weight over what you currently have. Also no IBIS, and I don’t believe they’re overly rugged.
Nikon Z series. For me the best ergonomically out of the FF mirrorless. Contentious one this but for me Nikon colours are the best as they are generally the most true to life. Again, very few lenses although the 24-70mm f4 is a nice ‘relatively’ light travel/walkabout lens. The new lens roadmap published in the last couple of days looks good too, including an 85mm f1.8 and 70-200mm f2.8. The big Achilles heel for me (and this is true of the EOS R too) is the one card slot. Why Nikon, why? 
Now you mention wanting FF and not thinking you can go back to crop, is there a specific reason for this? The reason I ask is that I run two systems (the Nikon D850 and Olympus EM1-II and at normal viewing size, and even printed large you struggle to see and discernible difference in IQ. In fact I did a blind test on here last year and 70% of people thought the Olympus was the FF shot.
Obviously this will depend on what you shoot, but when I go away most of my shots are landscape/cityscapes etc which are all shot with a small ish aperture to get large DOF in which case you’re really not going to see any difference in IQ between FF, crop or even MFT unless pixel peeping.
If you want shallow DOF then obviously FF is your friend, likewise shooting at high ISO. However, with my Olympus I rarely have to shoot high ISO as the IBIS is so good I can hand hold for 2s, yes that’s right you can shoot at 2s without a tripod 
Going away, for the same weight as my D850 with 24-120mm f4 (1715g), I can take my EM1-II and 12-40mm 24-80mm eq) f2.8 (954g), 45mm (90mm eq) f1.8 (115g), 40-150mm (80-300mm eq) f4-5.6 R (190g) and Sigma 56mm (112mm eq) f1.4 (280g) and still have a lighter bag.
I know this is highly unlikely to deter you from looking at FF, just food for thought 
Agreed, ergonomics is bad unless you have teeny hands, or for larger hands don't have apinky.
Weather sealing not that bad, but could be better Taking Apart The Sony A7rIII – In Search of Better Weather Sealing
Although check the section on the bottom plate which appears poor: In case you can’t tell, I’m pretty unhappy with the bottom design of the Sony A7rIII. There’s absolutely no protection or improvement over the Sony A7rII. Now the case designers (and most of you) are probably aware that rain falls down from the sky onto the top of the camera. The repair people (like us) are aware that people set cameras down and puddles occur; also splashes go up, and sometimes cameras are held in portrait mode. In other words, a liquid will find your weakest point.
As noted previously at least one of the A7 series lenses is poor imo.
EF 40mm pancake on the free adapter
RF 35mm F1.8 IS macro
both good walk around lenses.
RF 24-105L is 100g lighter than the EF. Not a lot, but every little helps...
Why?
While I haven't tried hammering in nails with my R it feels solid and well built. More than can be said for my A6000 and A7 both of which feel delicate and fragile especially the control dials and switches. If you look at the R teardown down at Lensrentals it appears well engineered and put together. Teardown of the Canon EOS R Mirrorless Camera
Not much use if your subject moves in those 2s...
I was recently shooting my R at 40,000 ISO in a very dimly lit concert environment, in the 2s you mention my subject would just have been a blur. and that was with an IS lens giving I think 4 stops unshakyness. Good for stopping my old hands shaking affecting the picture, not so good for freezing motion. Best results were at around 1/500th hence the 40,000 ISO. Subject just wouldn't stay still...
Granted I should have said travel zoom, but the 24-105mm whilst it may be 100g lighter than the EF mount L IS II, it's not exactly that light, and is actually only 10g lighter than the 24-120mm f4 Nikon lens, and is heavier than the L IS lens. Obviously the 5D3 is quite a heavy body so there's a few hundred grams saving there, and I guess only the individual can decide whether this is worth the £2k or so it would cost for that weight saving 
TBH the EOS R looks better sealed than I first thought 
No s*** Sherlock 
As I said in my post they were just my opinions, it's what works for me and clearly won't be for everyone. I went around the houses trying to find the perfect travel setup and have settled on MFT. I may revisit this again once the Nikon Z or EOS R systems have matured, and/or if the rumour of an APS-C Nikon Mirrorless proves to come true, but for now MFT gives me 'the same' (with the caveats already mentioned) IQ in most situations for a fraction of the weight. For my upcoming trip to Cuba I'm taking a 200-800mm eq lens in my hand luggage, try doing that with FF  
Ah, no I didn't realise you meant video, thought you meant old school 35mm film! 
On balance i'd say, unless you definitely need something lighter/more compact, or are sure it won't do what you want video-wise, why not just stick with the 6D? It's a pro-level camera, right, so if you're not happy with the pictures it's probably you (no offense intended!). It'll be more or less equally capable of taking as good pictures as anything else you're gonna buy. Maybe instead spend some money of software/courses to improve your post processing to get the best out of it?