Ok, I'll do some correction since you asked 
The DxOMark is about sensor performance, not camera performance. Besides you didn't specify which Sony-sensor camera you meant - Sony provides APS-C sensors for Nikon, Pentax, Fujifilm and it's own camera division.
I realize that.
But whoever wrote that DxO article is a geek behind a desk,
not someone who's ever been outdoors trying to take nature or wildlife photography. You rarely use "base ISO" for that. The article was written from the perspective of a guy who doesn't even know what a camera is FOR ...
If he had the first clue about what a crop camera is for it is REACH ... and if the Canon 7D Mark II has
better low ISO performance than all the others
and better ergonomics, AF, functionality, etc. ... then it eclipses the competition pretty much on every level, as a wildlife/sports camera.
A person who
actually uses cameras, and doesn't just "measure sensors" would realize this.
If we look at what they measure, then the 7DII sensor performance does trail at lower ISOs and catches up on latter ones giving very similar performance on high ISOs though with lower colour accuracy and possibly higher colour interpolation induced noise.
High ISO is a toss up.
But the other properties you mention are not sensor properties, but camera properties. There are many cameras using Sonys sensors, including Nikons, and I'm sure Nikonians might disagree with some of your points 
DxO measures sensor, not camera, and there Canon is lagging.
Wow, I keep having to repeat myself:
people who actually use cameras for sports and wildlife photography don't really care about "base ISO," as they almost never use this.
The EOS 7D II is a more fully-functional camera, on pretty much every level ...
and surpasses even the "top sensor" cameras
where it matters, and that is at the higher ISOs.
For wildlife and fast-action, it is very compelling camera all the way around, including its sensor.
Canon has used very weak colour separation for a long time now - the colour accuracy is better on pretty much all the competition (when it comes to colour filter array). Also, it's not just "base" ISO, but 7DII trails all the way to and including middle ISOs. Also has slightly lower pixel count.
And the high ISO is a toss up.
I am not sure this is a fact.
I have heard Canon reproduces skin tones better than Nikon, etc.
Most of the really great macro I have seen comes from Canon.
Most of the keen sports photography comes from Canon.
When it comes to sensors Canon is handicapped by some things things:
- Their APS-C sensor is about 9% smaller than the main competitions
- They use their own rather coarse fabrication line (180nm) for APS-C and the competition uses 90nm or less
- To make above items even more significant, 7DII has two photodiodes per pixel due to AF
- Canon's analog to digital conversion has been subpar for ages - that's the reason for low ISO issues - maybe it's due to the 180nm geometry limitation?
Interesting facts, thanks. But, again,
high ISO is what matters most to wildlife/sports photographers, so if that is where Canon excels ...
and if its ergonomics, frame rate, and functionality
also at the top of the food chain, then this merely confirms its position as THE best camera of the lot of them for this purpose.
Canon's pixel designs are state of the art, no question about it.
And AF,
and FPS,
and lenses,
and programmable functionality, etc.
What Canon should do, and will likely do, is to move their full frame sensor production to 180nm process from current ancient 500nm (the competition again is already at 180nm or even less and outsource the fabrication of their APS-C designs. Of course they may also build or buy a new fabrication plant, but they're not exactly cheap.
Whatever they're doing now, they already have the best all-around wildlife and sports camera available. If they do what you suggest to their next FF camera, the would be nice, but already what they have is nice.
Macro is usually done with a tripod and often with a ring flash - low ISO is just fine.
Speak for yourself: I am a natural light macro shooter.
I do use a tripod, but I almost never use flash, because I prefer the rendering of natural light.
Because of this, I am invariably at a mid-to-high ISO.
Telephoto on good light is certainly base ISO stuff.
I know some awesome super telephoto wildlife photographers, and have seen scores of their images, and almost none are at base ISO ... so I think you're just making this up in your head, and don't actually try to capture wildlife photography yourself with such lenses.
High ISO is much more marginal than low ISO.
I am not sure what you mean by this.
Also, most modern sensors - not Canons - are close to being ISOless, that is you can shoot at base ISO in low light and get the same result you'd get with high ISO, but with less risk in blowin highlight (ie. much more headroom).
Don't know what to say about this, nor what fantacizing about the future has to do with the present subject: the Canon 7D II right now a full complement of superior features to the competition
and possesses a sensor which is equal to/better, at higher ISOs,
where it matters to people who actually use their cameras.
DxO still is about sensors, not ergonomics or stuff.
And cameras are all about
being used for a purpose,
not just having one, isolated aspect sensor performance evaluated by bespectacled geeks who don't actually use cameras.
And, for the purpose of wildlife photography & sports photography, which usually involve REACH, higher ISOs,
and the ability to nail "a moment" before it's gone, the EOS 7D II delivers.
Jack
