In terms of whether they did everything they could. Nope. The camera is an homologation of used parts, put together to create not only a great camera but also to do it cheaply. The profit on these cameras will be really good I assume, the cost of R&D on this camera is minimal, slightly updated sensor to keep the frame rate up and slight improvement to noise and DR, AF system moved from 1DX, body does have some ergonomic changes which is nice and a little more weather sealing. They just raided the parts bin instead of truly innovating this product which is fine by me, but for a £1000 premium... kind of annoying but what do you do?
I'm not sure I would consider a COMPLETELY new AF system that's only on TWO cameras "used parts", especially when it beat the camera it was "taken" from to market. How many people would have loved to have had the "used" AF system out of the 1DsMKIII in the 5DMKII? Hell, I know I would have. Almost EVERY manufacturer shares parts across products. Go look at almost any brand of vehicle in different models and you'll see things like steering wheels, control knobs, door handles and engines being used across multiple platforms.
You misinterpret what I mean, I meant that the AF wasn't designed specifically for the 5D MKIII it was designed for the 1DX and it has borrowed it. Which is fine. What I was meaning was the R&D isnt extreme because they have recycled tech, the AF is amazing and I welcome it but the overall point being the tech already existed yet we pay an extra £1000 premium over the 5D MKII. There is a lot of profit in this camera for Canon because it is not unique tech.