Oh, and half of the rants made by some about 7D2 focussing in the early days were those who found the AF so complex they had to eventually go and read the instruction book.
If you want to believe that reviewers "can't figure out" how to use the 7D II, but magically figured out how to use the D500, as a way to justify the 7D II's fail rate to make yourself feel better, that is on you.
The 7D II is a fine, mid-level APS-C, but the D500 is superior across the board. Again, denial isn't rebuttal, it is only denial.
No one was "ranting" about the 7D Mk II, what they were saying is (in addition to having the #12 sensor, quality-wise) the 7D II could not discern objects moving toward, or away from, with anywhere near the accuracy of the D500.
So, basically, you're going to be missing more shots (firing-off discards), while those shots you do get will be mid-level. You will simply get more keepers with the D500, and those you keep will be stored on the highest-quality sensor in the class.
As for all the "great shots" taken with the 7D II, most of what I've seen have been great subjects, taken with great composition on the part of the photographer, but where the image quality was often grainy and noisy and not the same quality as what can be expected with better sensors. The 7D II may have been an upgrade for Canon shooters, but the specs are quite a bit lower than what other sensors are capable of producing.
Again, the same Canon Explorer of Light couldn't keep a straight face when asked to compare the quality of the 7D II to his 1Dx, and he admitted there was a noticeable difference, let alone when when you compare 7D II images to images taken by cameras with better sensors than the 1Dx
Anyway, this could go on forever. There are facts stated and posted all over the net, and it is clear you will simply keep denying reality. Very well, then.
I am through with this topic, so rail-on if you have to.