The 7d came in substantially less than a new 5d2 came in at, with the "newer" technology. Why can't a 7D2, having some of the same technology and some "newer" technology come in substantially less than the 5d3?
Too often, people generalize about Canon pricing based on one example – the higher cost of the 5DIII in comparison to the D800. But, that was an anomaly. Canon and Nikon traditionally price their comparable models at nearly identical price points.
They do so because that's what the market demands. A $2,500 7DII would be hard-pressed to compete against a $1,800 D400.
Why didn't the 5DIII follow that pattern?
I have always argued that Canon set a $500 premium with the 5DIII because the 5DIII was much more targeted to specific buyers than the D800. The 5DIII with its high ISO performance is a must-have tool for photographers in a highly competitive field – weddings and events (which also happens to be about the only sizeable professional field left). Canon knew they could charge a premium because their target audience needs the competitive edge that the clean high ISOs gives them.
The D800 sacrificed high-ISO performance for high resolution. Unfortunately, there simply isn't a large professional base of photographers who gain any competitive edge from a high resolution sensor (emphasis on "large" professional base). It's a nice feature and gives some bragging rights to a company that has been perceived as being behind the curve on resolution for several years. That's not to say that some photographers don't need high resolution, it's just that the target audience is much smaller and the competitive advantages to be gained from the high resolution are much less significant.
I don't understand why people always point to the 5DIII, which was an exception, when every other DSLR Canon makes fits nicely within the rule of consistent pricing with their competitors. Frankly, the relatively low pricing of the 70D should give some reassurance that the 7DII will likely come in comfortably under $2,000