So Canon did all of this yet there are stories already about a quick replacement of the 5D3? Well, that tells you how important that list of "improvements" that you listed is, doesn't it?As for a 5DIII 'replacement', I'd say BS and wishful thinking. Many of the people clamoring for a high MP camera from Canon don't want to pay the price for a 1-series body, and from such dreams, rumors are born.
Don't be so fixed on megapixels as being the only problem that needs attention.
What needs addressing is IQ. A combination of more megapixels and improvements in noise, DR, etc, is what is sought.
In essence, this is what the entire Canon community (apart from a few deniers such as yourself) seem to be saying - a new camera that costs $800-$900 more but my pictures are pretty much the same as before. WTF?
No, what the Canon community here on CR (and, I would argue, the photographic community at large given how many 5D III's have sold) is saying is that IQ is not solely the domain of the image sensor. There are other aspects of IQ as well. The AF system is indeed a very significant factor that assists photographers in maximizing IQ. The increase in frame rate is another significant factor in maximizing IQ.
I'd like to know how a higher frame rate delivers better pictures. What it really delivers is pictures faster but if you know something I don't, please go ahead...
A high fps also introduces more shake into the camera body because the slap of that mirror against the camera body transfers momentum from the mirror to the camera.
The best sensor in the world doesn't matter a wit if its AF system and frame rate are low enough such that you can't actually capture the one frame where everything is still and sharp...a soft frame is a soft frame, regardless of whether the sensor pumps out beautifully soft pixels or not.
Again, frame rate does not correlate with sharpness. Just look at the 1D3. 10fps that delivered less than 50% usable pictures due to AF quirkiness. Boy was that a dog of a camera for sports photographers.
I'd offer that there are far more photographers who shoot high action in one form or another who use ISO settings 800 and above than photographers who shoot still scenes or low action and use ISO settings 400 and below. To the greater majority of photographers, the AF system and frame rate are critical factors to attaining the IQ they require. To that end, I'd say Canon did well by their customers, and clearly listened to what their customers were asking for...less megapixels, higher ISO, less noise at higher ISO (hell, even I asked for that!!! )
If I was a professional sports shooter, I wouldn't be using the 5DIII - except for those post match shots of presentations, etc, where a flash is often used.
Let me put this another way. If I pick up and use a 5D Mark III, what am I going to notice as being significantly better aside from the AF? Nothing. What do I see as being better when I look at the images on my computer? Nothing.
So $800 or $900 more for improved AF.
Sorry, I completely disagree with that conclusion. With a few notable (and *cough* vociferous) minority exceptions, the consensus was that the sensor-based IQ of the 5DII was excellent - it wasn't broke, and Canon didn't fix it.
And if Canon thought that then they're guilty of being complacent.
Perhaps your finger-pressing ability is not that fine, however our minds can indeed sense minute differences. Our ability to measure time perceptually is not limited to 1-second increments, and even if we cannot send an impulse from our brains to our fingers in 1/20th of a second, that does not mean we cannot sense the difference between 1/10th and 1/20th of a second. Especially in the context of a camera shutter...looking through the viewfinder, it is very easy to recognize a TWO-FOLD difference in shutter performance, especially when holding the shutter button down and watching frame after frame race past at nearly double the speed. I'll say that again...a TWO FOLD, FACTOR OF TWO, 100% or DOUBLE the difference in shutter speed...relatively speaking, that is a huge difference!
You're mixing two very different things up in the one paragraph as if they were the same. And the way you're screaming about 6fps is similar to the way people screamed about more megapixels in days gone by. *yawn*
But again, taking more pictures every second has nothing to do with IQ. Really, it just determines how quickly our SF/SD/HDD fills up.
In the last 3 years of shooting every week, I've needed/wanted more than 3 fps exactly once.
Except that for the price the IQ is very very ordinary.
What exactly is "ordinary IQ"? I think your generalizing a bit too much...
The 5DII/5DIII IQ is now no longer anything special as it was when the 5DII debuted. It is now back in the pack and even various APS-C sensors out-do it.