Hey zim, not sure what acronym you mean but everything's cool here! I feel your frustration, a $3000+ camera that is heavily marketed to do something well should indeed do that something well, esp after we waited extra time for the camera to be released. It's a wonderful camera for all other uses. I wouldn't hold my breath for the low light fix. Start considering what YOU can do to work around it. I am hoping that the 6D is Canon's hail mary throw to the end zone to address the 5D3 low light issue.
I think this is a problem we are going to see more often as DSLRs are being designed to be both still picture cameras and video devices. I hate that Canon has taken this path. It's a compromise that drags down the still picture performance while also hampering the video performance. I wonder if this dual use design challenge is partly to blame for the low light issue.
Canon: Just give me a highest possible quality still picture camera with NO video! I don't use it, I don't need it and I'm trying to understand why it even exists on a pro level camera. Photographers are NOT videographers and vice versa. And those that are, typically will buy the tool that is best for each craft. They don't crave one-device fits-all solutions. I've taken some shaky video with my 60D and it sucks. So what if you can use EF lenses on the thing? The DSLR body design is terrible for video so to make it work, tons of money must be spent on all kinds of contraptions to fix the problems that video camcorder (pro and consumer) makers solved years ago with dedicated HD camcorders that still make better video with AF and stereo sound. IMO, adding video to DSLRs was done to sell more cameras to consumers wanting to move up from point and shoot cameras, not answer any urgent need from photographers and it's a real shame. It's a novelty feature that is likely hurting, not helping the primary use of the camera which is taking still images, not video.
totally and completely agree rustmeister...one beer for you! now you only owe me one