+1 I think the 6D was a good idea, EXCEPT for the crippled AF - that was a mistake.
It wasn't so much a mistake as a pricing strategy for a new product category, an entry level full frame DSLR. If they had used a 7D-based AF sensor, the price and overall performance would have been too close to the 5D3...other than a 1.5 fps "crippling". Enough people have bought the 6D to tell Canon it was actually a resounding success, it seems to me. Nobody is overjoyed with the AF, but it can be made to work if you recognize its faults and work around them. For most every type of shooting I do, I prefer it to the 5D3. The 5D3 costs 50% more and has far worse luminance noise. If all I did was hold the shutter button down all day in multi-shot mode, I would be less happy. But Canon knew most people who would buy something like the 6D, would be able to use it as is. It's not as if they weren't very happy with the 5D2 and it's very similar autofocus system for over 4 years...and they were happy to pay 35 to 40% more for it to boot! They would even come on forums and brag about how good their 5D2 was, and how it was the best camera they ever owned. Imagine what they would have thought if the 5D2 had cost only $1600 (rather than $2700) and had even better image quality! Well, that's the 6D for ya.