So apart from the best lenses, flash system, ergonomics, service, reliability, etc, "What have Canon ever done for us?"
... and so the thread spirals towards the inevitable conclusion that immunizes Canon from critique for so long: You just need to pay $15k+ for their premium gear and you'll be just fine. And for the rest of their lineup: You can do beautiful shots with it. And the photogs of olden days did so with even much less gear. So what could be wrong? 'nuff said :-o
Not at all, some of the comments ridiculing some of the decisions by Canon are very well made, particularly on the software side where the holding back of basic 'features' is laughable. But Canon are not the only camera company that play that frustrating game of never quite seeming to get it completely right in one go, they all do it.
But much of the core criticism is just as laughable. For instance I don't buy into the 'crippling the RT system' meme, I think having just the 600 and the ST-E3-RT is fine, if I want AF assist I'll have a 600 on camera anyway, after all it is very rare that most people are in a dynamic flash situation and couldn't use any on camera light, even if they are bouncing it, and at $455 a lot of the time it is still way cheaper than the Nikon SB910 that doesn't even have radio functionality, plus if you want to mess up a perfectly good RT system buying crappy Chinese 'clones' to work with it then go for it. OR, point me to another camera manufacturer that makes their own radio controlled flash system, oh, you can't.......
Besides, if Canon don't make what you want then go buy it elsewhere, nobody ever forced anybody to buy or keep Canon gear and it holds its value very well so moving systems isn't that expensive even if you have been tied into it for years or have a big investment in it.
I just sold a ten year old lens for $900, I bought it new for $1,250, that is a $35 a year rental cost! Even the 1D I just sold at a depreciated $6,000 and very low shutter count cost me less than 30c an image, around a 1/3 the price of the film per image it replaced.
Despite peoples opinions I am not a Canon apologist, I'd like to think I am more of a realist, Canon can offer us what they do now because of what they have done in the past, and as a career decision to use Canon way back in the '70's before I knew what I was doing and again in the early 2000's when I moved to AF, I am generally happy with what they have offered me, though I do have some frustration about the lack of a 1Ds MkIII replacement. I have no doubt that if I had chosen Nikon on either or both of those occasions I'd be just as happy.
Canon make very good cameras that fit in with an even better system, if that isn't for you then buy a different brand, nobody cares, but if you can't create the images you want with the gear currently offered then don't look for the lack of this or that feature as the excuse, the reason for your failure is six inches behind the viewfinder.