I think you really need to calm down and evaluate how wisely you're dealing with this. And particularly, as to what you're saying.
If you take the time to read my post, I'm obviously not comparing medium format cameras to the 5D MK II. But no DSLR can be compared to a medium format camera, as they're completely different. You actually raised the issue of the medium format camera being an option - I pointed out that they're in entirely different fields. Please read what I (and others) have written before launching into misdirected criticism.
I find it rather humourous that you mention 'excellence - in whose eyes?'; it's exactly the point that you yourself should be taking in.
I have no qualms in anyone pointing out some disappointments in any brand. There are faults in Canon just like there are faults in every single brand and company on this planet. But they way you're portraying it is frankly unjust and my posts have clarified many points which you have left out or warped.
I think you've lost the idea, here, regarding the flagship cameras. Just as Nikon has shifted their D3 into two different bodies now (the D3X, with 24+ MP, and the D3S, which is practically the same as the D3), so has Canon: the 1D and the 1Ds series, that are targeted to two different types of photographers - sports/wildlife photographers and studio photographers respectively. And the D700, comparable to the 5D MK II, is targeted as a backup camera, or also available to those who are looking for a good but relatively cheap full frame body.
These series have not merely gone up '1 or 2 MP' - they've improved resolution drastically, and I might add that sensor technology has been improved by Canon to 'defray' what would otherwise result in noise problems.
You absolutely can't compare the 1D MK IV as being terrible to the D3s. They've got a difference of some 4 million pixels in resolution, and the 1D MK IV is still
faster in terms of burst rate. Admittedly, the D3s is slightly better in noise handling, but the 1D MK IV holds its ground extremely well considering the resolution.
RE your idea that the 1.3x FOVCF is not useful for some photographers - perhaps make yourself more acquainted with Canon's professional lineup. They have a 1Ds MK III (which should have a successor in the next year or so) that caters for full frame. The 1D MK IV is targeted, as I've said above, to those capturing fast movement (ie; sports, wildlife, etc.).
I'd also recommend that you familiar yourself better with sensor technology and general physics that is relevant to cameras if you want to talk about such things. You speak very assertively, but unfortunately, you're very wrong when you mention:
If you want increased focal length, get a tele-extender- they work great (with no loss of resolution like cropping a photo or sensor cropping option). But don't build a flagship camera around that concept- it's straight up silly (I'm obviously being facetious there). End of story.
It's plain wrong. Cropping doesn't reduce any resolution when talking about crop sensors, as you factor in the pixel density as higher. You can compare a 15MP APS-C (ie, a crop factor body) and a 24MP full frame body, and that works. They come around to the same resolution if you crop the equivalent image from the full frame body. But we're talking about 16MP vs 21MP, between Canon's top two models. You also must consider the idea that a smaller focal plane gives a larger depth of field, whilst the idea that a great focal length provides less DOF has been proven false. So, for those wanting to get in really closely, there's extra DOF without sacrificing speed in relation to aperture.
And frankly, saying that a tele-extender won't affect the resolution, while correct, is ignorant in that ignores the detriment it brings to image quality. CA, sharpness, affects on aperture and other side effects are seen when using a tele-extender.
And Nikon's DX mode on their FF cameras leaves an enormous vignette around the image. At a reduced resolution. It's not the same.