(Italicized quotes are from Jrista.)
“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.”
Well, that’s what you think. It matters huge at the wide angle end, and you know it does. The 10-22 is not an f/2.8 lens. So a narrower aperture coupled to a smaller sensor with higher noise floor, will achieve inferior results to full frame on a good quality f/2.8 wide angle lens (for wide angle astrophotography, night imaging, etc.) The 10-22 Canon EF-S, is also very low quality…you just happened to either not look at your images at even 50%, or else you had an unnaturally good copy…or else you’re way off base. Have a look at what the rental houses say about the 10-22. The 10-22 is inherently soft in the outer 40% of the image, even closed to f/8. It’s worthless crap. Please post proof otherwise, if you have it, and it needs to be fairly ironclad, with full exif…say a shot done at less than 15mm, at f/8 or f/7.1…preferably RAW. Notice I'm throwing you a bone and allowing for the handicapped sharpness. I would ask for an f/3.5 image done at 10mm, but that would be a total waste of time. It's also f/3.5 in a crop sensor vs f/2.8 on a full frame...
Honestly Jrista, or whatever your name is...you're so hyper enthusiastic about the series 2 great white superteles...that for you to even mention the Canon EF-S 10-22, is not only laughable, but it also chips away at your credibility regarding your wonderboy opinions about lens performance and the like.
“APS-C is not inherently "cheap", in terms of quality.”
That’s not what I said, and again, you know that’s not what I said. You’re implying I’m saying the format itself, especially a camera body in the format…is inherently “cheap.” I don’t think it is inherently “cheap”, nor did I say it was. I was referring to most EF-S lenses, as can clearly be seen if you read what I said again, in context…rather than attempt to dissect it out of context. You seem to have a lot of time to do that. I suggest you go out and shoot more pictures, as I have been doing.
“Reach is everything for a number of fields of photography, and in that respect, APS-C offers significant value.”
And in the same sense, even smaller sensored cameras can offer even more value, such as the SX50. But the SX50 doesn’t cost over $2k for the body, plus the $7k to $10k cost of a supertele. “Value” is very highly subjective here. What one person thinks of as high value, someone else with slightly different needs, might see as not a value at all. Buying a series 2 great white, will always be the dominant part of the equation. The “value” of a camera body, factors in very little, unless it is at or close to the level of the 1DX…or unless you have or need 3 or 4 camera bodies in the arsenal. So if maximum reach with a given lens is all you value, then yes, bodies like the future 7D2 could be seen as representing "good value". Just remember that the "good value" here, is because you can use a single supertele lens with two different bodies to achieve two "effective" focal lengths. That's the only "value". You can achieve BETTER value by simply using two different teleconverters, because then you have 3 possible "effective" focal lengths, rather than two...all for under $1k over the cost of the lens alone...as opposed to ~ $2k+ for buying the top class APS-C body.
“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.”
I’m happy that you can inform us all, as to what the “only question is”. You are overqualified there, a happy coincidence for you. It’s getting tiresome from here. Good day.