dilbert's post gives me a great visual of the modern sports photographer, wireless trigger clenched tightly in his tired, sweaty palm in the rainy stands at Wimbledon. You can see him in some of the pics if you look closely enough, but at 18mp you'll not spot the tiny hint of a tear gathering in his eye.
In reality, there's always a potential for a big debate if you try to catch a sports photog with a question about speed firing. Those who shoot a more traditional way will certainly appreciate a faster shutter and less viewfinder blackout, and even the faster shooting speed, but I've come across at least one pro who disdains firing away blindly in hopes that the right moment will be there. If raw speed were the only consideration, you'd expect more sports photographers to be using DSLRs with video to just extract the right frame (we're at the point where resolution is more than enough for newspaper shots, and two-page spreads aren't too far behind). And I've seen that argument run its course as well.
Multi-camera setups pose a real challenge for the craft, since you are getting many more opportunities for great shots, but ultimately less control over any one of those viewpoints. Quantity over quality (if only to a small degree) - it's still a compelling argument, especially for photogs working alone. The big names in the industry (SI for example) still seem to find the money to pair up one viewfinder with one pair of eyes, though.
About the linked article - nice go at it, but too many inspecifics and too many lessons taken away from too little data. The JPEG-only 14 shots has been publicly known since DPR posted their stats breakdown, and I'm wary of the phrases peppered throughout this article like "sports shooters will be pleased," of which there are more than a few (though the wedding photographers and ISO line is hard to disagree with). I'd pay more attention to the fact he's straining at some of the comparisons, like so: "Time will tell if it is simply a match to the D3s or if they will be competitive with the D3s replacement." Also: "I didnâ€™t have enough time to test buffer flush performance."
There isn't much that seems like Irrational Exuberance! but much of it appears as speculation and known factoids repackaged with "hands-on" credentials. At this point, I really don't care to see yet another simplistic-and-truly-unhelpful rain and buckets analogy for pixel pitch from another camera tech layman so we can learn what Chuck Westfall and Canon want us to know (whether or not it is strictly true or not). If I lean up against a BMW in the showroom, does that mean I can offer "insights" into its handling? Too many of the interesting insights of this piece are hard to find because you have to trudge through other stuff to get there. Well, I suppose the insights into how this photographer (who is pretty typical) expects the camera to hold up would be interesting if the released camera deviates from them in some way, and also to see what things matter (unsurprisingly, the new batteries and charger get a mention).
This, I like: "The programmable buttons on the front of the camera mean that you can finally program mirror lockup to a hard button without having to go into the menu."
I don't think Michael Reichmann will be the first to buy this camera, though it's nice to hear Canon finally listened.