Yup, all true. For another interesting factoid, compare the worst 35mm viewfinders ever made, to the absolute best APS-C DSLR viewfinders ever made:The 7D does not. It is a 1.0x magnification viewfinder and has 100% accurate field of view (50mm lens focused at infinity). However, it is a crop sensor so the apparent field of view is smaller, even if it has the same magnification as the naked eye.
The last (35mm) camera to have a close-to-1.0x viewfinder was the Pentax MX (0.97x and 95%). Nikon's largest was the Nikkormat EL2 and FT3 (0.90x and 92%), the largest Canon is the TL, FT QL, Flex R2000, Flex RP and Flex (0.90x and 94%). Note that all of these cameras are manual focus film SLRs.
In the autofocus era, here are the biggest viewfinders from the 'big two': Canon - 620/630/650/RT (0.80x and 94%), Nikon - N2020 (0.85x and 92%).
In the digital era there is only one APS-C camera with a 1.0x viewfinder - Canon 7D (1.0x and 100%). Many other crop cameras come close, namely - Nikon D90 (0.96x), Canon 40D/50D/60D (0.95x), Pentax *ist D/*ist DS/*ist DS2/K10D/K20D/K-x (0.95x), Sigma SD1 (0.95x), Nikon D200/D80/D300/D300s/D7000/D7100 (0.94x).
The largest viewfinders for any less-than medium format DSLRs are the one's found in the 1Ds Mark III and 1Dx (0.76x and 100%). Nikon's biggest are the ones in D3/D3s/D3x/D4/D600/D800 (0.70x and 100%).
The medium format Leica S2 has a viewfinder with 0.86x magnification and 96% accuracy (along with a crop factor of 0.8x, resulting in a normalized size of 1.03 in 35mm terms - which comes out to be 35% larger than the ones in Canon's 1Ds Mark III and 1Dx).
So, I do think a magnification of 1.0x would be a huge step ahead of what is available, or has ever been available.
Interesting, I will try my 58mm lens on my friend's 7D, focused at infinity. I know my 58mm at closer than infinity, magnifies the image a lot...as does my 70-200 f/4, when focusing closer. And I suspect my 58mm lens, is actually more like 53 or 54mm at infinity.
However, I will never buy a 7D...I've decided I kind of detest them. I much prefer my 6D, its ergonomics, and its file output. Whether the AF is weaker or not, I can certainly get 99% of the shots I do with it, in focus (and this includes fast servo work at times). I assume if the 6D had a 1.0x viewfinder, it might also need a larger "prism/mirror box"...and thus cost more than Canon would want to spend on making it at the 6D's desired price level...but I could be wrong.
The only other Canon DSLR bodies I will buy in the future, are a 1DX, or else a 1DX successor, and/or a 6D successor. Unless I wind up needing to shoot a lot of video, in which case the recent hack of the 5D3, makes it appealing for that. My neighbor recently bought a 1DX, so I hope to use his a bit at times.
Worst 35mm VF
Canon Rebels (XS, X, G, 2000, Ti, K2, T2)
90% coverage, 0.70 magnification, no crop factor - 0.90 x 0.70 / 1 = 0.63 normalized size
Best APS-C VFs
100% coverage, 1.00 magnification, 1.6x crop factor - 1.00 x 1.00 /1.6 = 0.625 normalized size
100% coverage, 0.94 magnification, 1.5x crop factor - 1.00 x 0.94 / 1.5 = 0.627 normalized size
Note that while the coverage on the film Rebels is the worst in the film SLR autofocus era (90%), the size of the image is imperceptibly larger than the absolute best available in the APS-C digital era.
For comparison, here are the normalized sizes of Canon and Nikon's Full Frame DSLRs:
Canon 5D and Nikon D700 (0.68)
Canon 6D (0.69)
Canon 1Ds/1Ds2/5D2 and Nikon D3/D3s/D3x/D4/D600/D800 (0.70)
Canon 5D3 (0.71)
Canon 1Ds3/1Dx (0.76)