Nikon and Sony have completely out foxed Canon.
Canon's first big mistake was putting only 22MP in the 5D3 with a sensor that performs about the same as the 5D2.
Having learnt from the lesson of the 1Ds3/5D2, Canon did not want to introduce a "lesser camera" (6D) than the 5D3 with the same sensor because lots of would-be purchasers of the 5D3 would simply buy the 6D instead. So the 6D will have 20MP to stop it stealing sales from those who want more MP (22) from the 5D3.
Where Nikon has outfoxed Canon is that their camera at about the same price ($2099 is close enough to $1999) but with 20% more pixels. Nikon were able to deliver a 24MP FF camera at $2099 because their next model up camera has substantially more megapixels - 36.
Canon's product lineup below the 1DX is screwed. They really need to throw it out and start over.
And why does Canon need to do that?
Because the number of megapixels in their sensors is now too low. And if megapixels didn't matter then why wouldn't the 6D have the same, if not more, than the 5D3?
You must have gotten the MP kool-aid. MP's aren't everything! If the rumored specs said 24 MP, would that and that alone make this on par? No. Where the d800 differentiates itself from the mk3 isn't in mp's, but in IQ and DR at ISO 100-800, and above ISO 800 Canon takes the lead in both IQ and DR.
Back to why these specs suck. It isn't MP's --- if it said 40 MP's it would still suck due to only having 11 AF points with 1 cross type at the center, and sd card only memory (unless this new sensor fixed the DR issues - but if it did, then the 6d would be closer to $2800). Those are really the biggest issues. It's 2012, we shouldn't have to center point recompose on a brand new $2000 camera. I could even deal with SD only if the AF was actually modern - it doesn't need to be the 61 point of the mk3, but dang it use the 21 point from 7d or the 45 point from the 1d4. If it had at least that then it would be a worthy purchase and sit on my left side as backup to my mk3 (if the ISO performance is close to that of the mk3). As it stands, the throwback to 2008 AF is useless, and SD only would prevent any kind of burst shooting due because SD wouldn't be able to handle writing at higher speeds. So sorry, while I agree these specs are a big fail --- it isn't because of MP's...
Why is the number of AF points a better measuring stick than megapixels?
I typically only use 1 AF point, so if the camera has 65, 64 of them are useless to me.
And when one isn't good enough, I use live view.
Whereas I can use every megapixel with every photograph.
As it is with AF points, it is the quality of them that matters more than the number of them. If the 6D had 39 AF points that worked about as well as the 5D2's 11 then it wouldn't matter if it had 39 or 390 - only one of them would actually be of use. So it all depends on if the 6D will have 11 AF points then is the AF module simply a 5D2 "spare part" or a completely new module.
Oh, as for SD vs CF. It's a pointless comparison. It's a place to put digital photographs, nothing more. If the camera didn't have such a thing then that would be a problem.