.all for a price that is closer to $2k than $3k
CarlTN, stop scaring me with $3K price 
lets not even go there ... I want 7D II for around $1600 ... but if the 7D II is released in an APS-H sensor then I will gladly pay up $3K.
A 21mp / 24mp sensor on the 7DII? Cool, so the users will have even more need of buying the best lenses in the Canon lineup to exploit the resolution. Two birds with one stone for Canon.
People not upgrading their lenses will ... well, whine again because the increased resolution is nothing if you pair it with cheap lenses!
I thought everyone decided "aps-h" was uncool? (I still like it...and again, I would prefer 1.1x or 1.2x...)
At any rate, there is no way a "7D" variant would receive that large of a sensor...because it would be called a 1D variant. Canon is apparently forever tied to 1.6x crop, and anything larger than 1.5x crop, would not work with the smaller (and usually cheap) lenses designed to be used with "aps-c"...
Which again...outlines a bit of a conundrum. "APS-C" was always meant to be an entry level format, was it not? Because a decade ago, it was cheaper to build smaller sensors (and couple them to smaller bodies and smaller mirror boxes). Now it is not so much cheaper, if any...to build the crop sensors, compared to full frame. So...again...why are people going to pay $2700 for a body that is hobbled by such a small sensor size? Because "aps-c"-specific lenses are superior to full frame lenses? Get friggin real, never going to happen, the physics are against it. Because they just will? Ok. Maybe they will buy because of the "cool factor", and because it's the Canon name and reputation behind it. Or maybe they won't buy as many as Canon would like. Time will tell.
One thing is for sure. 5D3 owners will be up in arms over anyone who posts that their new 7D2 is the superior camera...When it comes to Canon fanboys, you just don't mess with the 5D3.
I don't think physics has anything to do with the inferiority of EF-S lenses. Optics are optics...it doesn't matter what kind of mount you use. If the optics resolve an extremely sharp image at the focus plane, you could slap on any mount you want, it doesn't matter. Leica and Zeiss lenses are examples of how lenses small in physical size can offer superior quality, for a mount that is neither EF or EF-S. The mount has nothing to do with the quality of a lens. If Canon wanted to, they could produce EF-S lenses that were just as high quality as comparable EF lenses. In some cases, they have, or very nearly so. The optics of the 10-22 and 17-85 are both very high quality. I think Canon's goal with EF-S is to keep them consumer glass, that's all.
As for APS-C, its just a format. It WAS cheaper in the past to manufacture them. As a matter of fact, it is STILL cheaper to manufacture them. Sensor cost is all about die area per sensor. No matter how you slice and dice it, FF sensors will always cost more than APS-C sensors. Waver costs have come down as 300mm crystal manufacture has improved, but that savings in cost distributes, so smaller sensors will always be cheaper than larger sensors, but a similar factor.
APS-C is not inherently "cheap", in terms of quality. APS-C also has its benefits. For anyone who photographs at range, the crop factor as well as the generally higher pixel density offers a reach advantage. Reach is everything for a number of fields of photography, and in that respect, APS-C offers significant value. For other fields of photography, getting the largest sensor you can get your hands on is the best thing to do...things like landscapes, astrophotography, portraiture and weddings, all benefit from a larger frame. There are pros and cons to both. APS-C is not intrinsically inferior technology just because the sensor is smaller.
Camera cost is also not entirely about the sensor. The advent of the 6D and D600 prove that. Even though those cameras both use a full frame sensor, they are relatively cheap. The camera as a whole is what drives its value, and that value ultimately has little to do with the materials cost (even if materials are the most significant cost), and more to do with the needs of the photographer. A 7D II with 61pt AF, 10fps, a deep frame buffer, clean high ISO (and ISO to 25600), and improved IQ overall (which would be especially likely if Canon does finally move to a 180nm process), are VALUABLE in and of themselves. That "package deal" is something photographers like myself could very much use...all that power, speed, and IQ with a cropped sensor? I WANT that reach, and I'll happily pay for it.
That said...I'll also happily pay for a 5D III AS WELL. I can use both cameras...I do stuff at range, as well as stuff close up (such as macro, which can benefit from larger pixels), as well as landscapes and astrophotography. The only question is which one I'll buy first, not which one is better than the other.
