I realize that some people have found that the 6D is not for them, and that's fine, but it doesn't mean that it's not for everyone, or that it's a bad camera.
The catch with the 6d is that I have to press the big red "delete knowledge" button to stop thinking about what Canon cut in comparison to the 5d3 for no reason at all than marketing, and what the competition can deliver for a €2000 price tag - after all, that's a lot of money for a camera body that is soon to be outdated by upcoming sensors and just has a 100k shutter rating.
But ignoring the said facts I'll most probably also buy a 6d if the price drops a bit more after the early adopters wave.
Well, you can look at it that way.
Or you can look at it this way:
The 5DII was the successor to the 5D, and a great camera.
The 5DIII is the successor to the 5DII, also a great camera.
The 6D is the first in it's line, a FF body for someone who can't afford the 5D series, or wants a slightly smaller body, or... Comparing it to the 5DIII isn't really fair.
If I had the money to spend on a 5DIII I might just buy one. It is a wonderful camera. But I am not a pro (though photography does come up quite often in what I do), and I have a mortgage, and a car payment, and a wife, and... From the OPs first post it seems that they aren't a pro either.
Seeing the 6D for $1699 last week definitely makes it appealing.
Of course I will probably still obsessively follow 5DIIs on Ebay looking for that killer deal that won't ever come.
Sorry for hijacking the post. The OP said that portraits and landscapes were the bulk of what they shoot, so it seems like an option not to discount.