It can. If you are hiking with minimal gear, a Micro 4/3 camera with a high resolution mode can give you an 80 or 100 MP raw file, due to its combination of excellent in-body image stabilization with step and repeat exposure routines.

Using the electronic shutter mode on any mirrorless camera that has one, turning off all artificial shutter sounds, and using a two second delay when on a sand-bagged tripod, will give you the least camera shake in your images.

That said, very careful use of a dSLR can yield excellent results, too. Lock up the mirror or use live view mode, turn off image stabilization, sand-bag your tripod, and turn off any artificial shutter sounds the camera can use in electronic shutter/live view mode.

One big benefit of a R5 vs 5D4 is the increase in dynamic range. With the 5D4, if I tried recovering shadow detail in post, it would become unnatural looking and add a lot of noise. That's why a lot of photographers "expose to the right." With the R5, I can turn images that would have been hopeless with the 5D4 into beautiful natural looking images. This has offered me more opportunities to play with difficult lighting and be more creative. Is this because of being mirrorless or just sensor advancement? I don't know. Sony was always the leader in this respect and they were always mirrorless.

Unfortunately not an option if I want to keep using the live-view exposure aids in the camera and take the photo I want to take. For example Fuji has an EVF mode they call Natural Live View as well as an option to disengage the EVF displaying exposure changes. That would improve the EVF image over what I had in that photo but that also renders useless the highlight clipping warning that I use to set exposure. Exposure is the issue. I posted that iris photo here this morning: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-773153-1.html#13893147 If you download it and examine the EXIF data you'll see that I had the EC set to +1.7 when I took the photo. That explains why the EVF image is so bad. If I removed the +1.7 EC and then set a custom WB I'd have a much better looking EVF image and JPEG, (though still not the photo I wanted to take). But I would also end up with a raw file that was exposed 1.7 stops less than I wanted. There's the point; I'm taking the photo and I know how I want it exposed. I selected the best possible sensor exposure rather than the exposure that makes for a good looking EVF image. I don't want the exposure that makes the EVF image and JPEG look good. I want the exposure that produces the best possible raw file.

I don't own a camera with an OVF -- all my cameras are mirrorless.

Here's that peek I just mentioned. I was out in the garden this evening snapping photos of the irises. Below you see on the left the JPEG my camera created. My camera does a really good job of showing me in the EVF what it's JPEG will look like. (You've said that's a positive feature. It's not for me.) Now in practical terms: In order for me to have the exposure aids in the EVF function I have to allow the camera to simulate in the EVF the JPEG it will create. THEREFORE what I had to look at in the EVF is what you see on your left -- and it really sucks. That's not the photo I was taking; it's the camera's cr*ppy JPEG. To get the JPEG looking better and therefore the EVF looking better I would have to compromise the exposure for the photo I was taking. Why should I do that?

On your right is my processed image and it's a pretty fair representation of that iris and what it looked like out in the garden a couple hours ago. In practical terms, an OVF would have shown me an image much more faithful to the iris I photographed. I'd prefer that to what you see here on your left. I think the difference shown has practical implications for using the camera and in photographic terms it is certainly both measurable and quantifiable.

Unfortunately not an option if I want to keep using the live-view exposure aids in the camera and take the photo I want to take. For example Fuji has an EVF mode they call Natural Live View as well as an option to disengage the EVF displaying exposure changes. That would improve the EVF image over what I had in that photo but that also renders useless the highlight clipping warning that I use to set exposure. Exposure is the issue. I posted that iris photo here this morning: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-773153-1.html#13893147 If you download it and examine the EXIF data you'll see that I had the EC set to +1.7 when I took the photo. That explains why the EVF image is so bad. If I removed the +1.7 EC and then set a custom WB I'd have a much better looking EVF image and JPEG, (though still not the photo I wanted to take). But I would also end up with a raw file that was exposed 1.7 stops less than I wanted. There's the point; I'm taking the photo and I know how I want it exposed. I selected the best possible sensor exposure rather than the exposure that makes for a good looking EVF image. I don't want the exposure that makes the EVF image and JPEG look good. I want the exposure that produces the best possible raw file.