To call this camera "entry-level" is nonsense. Yes, its simpler and has fewer features, but they kept the right ones in, especially if what you want is a full-frame camera that's a bit smaller and more portable. I know plenty of professionals who use this camera to make money. I think its a bargain compared to a Mk3 and I love full-frame shooting, so the new 7D doesn't thrill me anyway.
The irony is that Canon obviously designed the 6D to not be used by pros.
And yet, pros are the ones working around its limitations with the least complaints.
They love the results and find the 6D a bargain, considering how quickly the camera pays for itself.
And since the camera has paid for itself, pros are likely to quickly upgrade when a successor is announced.
For non-pros, it's a different story: for $2K, I'm expecting a full-featured camera, which I'll likely keep for years.
Thus, while others see the 6D as a bargain, I see it as a poor long-term purchase - due to its limited features
and poor overall value as a long-term purchase.
Note, though, that when Nikon hits the jackpot with a model (D3, D300, D750), Canon follows suit in a couple of years.
So, it can be fully expected that in (at most) two years, Canon will have a worthy competitor to the D750.
And at that time, it won't be worth arguing whether the 6DII is crippled or not .