Unless your sponsored by a camera company, give camera company seminars, or sell cameras (which in a way covers all three of the above) this doesn't really matter and honestly if you fall into one of those groups your validity on camera selection comes with an agenda, though it doesn't mean the agenda is wrong, or not honest, it just means there is a built in bias.
Shoot what you want, shoot multiple systems/brands, shoot what is right for you and for the creative brief. I just don't believe it's a one camera fits all world and the only real suggestion I have to anyone selecting a camera is if you buy right, you'll use that camera until the paint falls off.
I can draw you a thousand instances where on a specific day a RED is better than a 5d2, a FS100, a Hasselblad, a Leica or a Nikon, but it all comes to two reasons to make your selection. 1. Do you like to use that specific camera and 2. Doe the camera your using enhance what you shooting not limiting it.
I recently returned from Europe where I carried 4 camera systems, 2 REDS, 1 Canon, 1 Sony and used them all and honestly they were all scene, subject, dependent.
We never made the mistake of saying to ourselves, heck I paid _______ for the expensive camera and I better damn well use it, or the opposite which is the smaller camera works faster, so screw it, I'll just make my life easy.
Good photography ain't easy, but I see photos on this and every site where I can tell the artist locked themselves down to the wrong equipment for the scene . . at least that's my opinion.
This argument will rage on until all photography is done on an I-phone, but at the end of the day, if you print a 44: print, even from a 6 mpx camera, the world will go wow. Big always looks impressive.
Also at the end of the day, a blad, a Nikon, A canon, A RED, A sony, A _______ all are very, very, good cameras . . . just different.
Difference is good.