Im buying it, and I generally agree with the review. I dont carry my 7D much now unless its for birds or underwater, I bought a 6D for people, but even that with lenses is starting to feel relatively heavy, given what image quality you can get with smaller cameras now for walkaround photography.
The market has changed, and most people wont want what this camera offers in exchange for the downsides for your average joe - if they just bought it on the basis of the plaudits it will get without realising its relative specialisation in todays market, they would be shortchanged.
The wildcard is, of course, how many people see the 7D2 as a specialist's tool and how many see it as a roundly robust camera for general photography?
Enthusiasts see the 7D2 as being a camera for the reach-obsessed and budget constrained. And there are sports/wildlife/birding folks out there that will be able to do 95% as much with a 7D2 + 400 prime as those with a 1DX + 600 prime for a ton less money.
But, let's face it, those folks have to be only, what, five
percent of the eventual people that will end up buying a 7D2? Sure, we talk about them. Sure, the value proposition is through the roof for those folks. But how many really are there?
So, yes, Gizmodo readers and Best Buy walk-in dudes/dudettes will buy one because it's new, it's powerful, and it's built to last. They aren't hung up on SLR footprint, size, weight, etc. They also aren't hung up on needing a FF sensor. But man
, will it nail the shot of their kid at a school concert, sporting event, family trip, etc.
Plus, I also think it's a relative top-end camera for the beginning pro photographer (the small-town photjournalist was a great comment someone made) who is on a tight budget. If a starting photog has $2-3k to invest in a new system, not all of them will take Canon/Nikon's entry level FF rigs -- they very well may see a better value in a loaded APS-C rig or a mirrorless APS-C rig, a few lenses, and a flash.