The 5DIII is an ok upgrade to the 5DII. In terms of what matters to me, the 5DIII basically is a 5DII, except with a vastly superior AF. They have similar sensors, MP, DR, etc. The 5DII had awesome image quality, when the 5DIII came out, no one was shocked or astounded by how good it was. Rather, we were told that in JPG, we might get 2 stops better ISO, maybe 1 stop better in RAW. I'm sure the 5DIII is better, but it is rather similar to the 5DII image quality wise and I'm not hearing many 5DII owners complaining about IQ compared to the III. In fact, for months after the 5DIII came out, when Nikon fans were showing reflections in eyeballs at full screen and giggling about how good the D800 was, Canon users were complaining about black borders at high ISO, smearing of details, and overly aggressive AA filtering. Now, the firmware is a little better, LR has better tools in place for editing, and now the 5DIII has settled in as a great camera(as the 5DII was.)
He slams the 5DIII as an upgrade - in what world is the 5DIII not a decent upgrade to the 5DII? Yes, the 5DIII has DR capabilities (and IQ) equivalent to 5DII, but if it's crap, why are he and his friends still using it? I contend that the thing about the 5DII that didn't need upgrading was the IQ - and Canon did a great job with AF, frame rate, dual slots, sealing, etc., i.e., everything else.
However, for me, the 5DIII is what the 5DII SHOULD HAVE been. If the 5DII had the AF of the 5DIII, then it would have KILLED the D700 in every way. Instead, the 5DII was awesome for video, while the D700 was more of a sports camera. If you want video and great skin tones, you went Canon, if you wanted AF you went Nikon(or 1D.) When the 5DII was current, all I wanted was better AF and I would have bought it. Me, and many other people think the 5DII should have had a better AF to begin with. Thus, prior to the 5DIII, all I really wanted was a 5DII with a better AF. However, given time, technology, etc. I thought that this upgrade would come in at a similar price point(every new Macbook pro with better features remains similarly priced to previous models.)
INSTEAD, the 5DIII came in at 1000 dollars more than the 5DII. The most obvious difference is the AF. So, in 4 years of waiting, Canon managed to release a somewhat similar camera to the 5DII, but with the AF the II should have had to begin with, and at a $1000 higher price.
So yes, for me the 5DIII was just an updated II with an inflated price tag. It looked like a great camera, but it should be for $3500!!!
I realize that you love Canon Neuro, but you need to understand that many people want to love Canon and were very disappointed in their products. I was a huge Canon fan for several years, but in the past 2 years got sick of their ridiculously inflated pricing on release(obv not a problem for some people here.)
Yes, the 5DIII was an upgrade, but it didn't come cheap, the price was also significantly higher.
The 5D3 came out at $800 more than the 5D2 at its introduction ($2700). So the $1000 price increase is an exaggeration. Now the 5D3 has dropped about 15% in price at reputable dealers ($3500 > $3000), but Canon still gets bashed for the $1000 price increase. The 5D3 is now only $200 more than the 5D2 was in 2008 and all of 2009. Canon gets no credit for dropping the price of the 5D2 to unbelievably low levels in recent months. Price increases are always blamed on the manufacturer, while price decreases are always credited to competition forcing prices down ... as if prices are set with no regard to the market. It seems that people who liked the 5D2 enough to buy it at $2700 found a new reason to blame Canon when the price fell by $1000; the big price cut just gave them more ammunition to bash the "similar" but "overpriced" 5D3.
Canon made dozens of improvements in the 5D3, bringing it closer to the much more expensive 1D series. The whole camera is more responsive and refined. New AF, new shutter, new viewfinder, better high ISO, higher frame rate, dual cards, etc. Just because autofocus is the only improvement that matters to you doesn't mean that Canon didn't build all of the other improvements, which happen to be improvements that matter to others who requested them. These improvements made the 5D3 a viable substitute for many 1D users, and thus a much cheaper alternative to the 1D cameras they had previously bought. For them, the 5D3 was the baby 1D they wished for, and a welcome price break even at the initial price of $3500.
Whenever a new model comes out, some people always say: "This is what the previous model should have been!" But that ignores how cameras are developed. It also ignores what the cost would have been had the later model been developed that much earlier. Let me use the same logic to top your claim that the 5D3 is what the 5D2 should have been in 2008. No, ... the 5D3 is what the D30 should have been been in 2000. (Nevermind what it would have cost then.) And the 1DX is what the 1D should have been in 2001. The 1V is what the EOS 620 should have been in 1987. The Nikon F6 is what the Nikon F should have been in 1959. The Leica M7 is what the Leica II should have been in 1932. And so on. Does this make any sense? Do we seriously want to blame manufacturers for evolving their products? Are we perpetually disappointed that all previous models where just bungled attempts at the current model, which itself is just a minor update of the previous model? Is the glass always half empty?