The 5D3 is better in almost every single way when compared to the 5D2.
Are people even educating themselves on the information??
Lots of people whining about the Megapixel count. I'm guessing they didn't read into how they have used new pixel technology this time around which leads to better quality images and process of colors and light.
But people are lazy I suppose. They see an arbitrary number and immediately take a dump in their pants.
Of course it is! Is anyone arguing that the 5D3 isn't an upgrade from the 5D2? It better darn well be, considering it's a brand new model being compared to a camera that's several years ago, and it's now priced at a considerable premium to the 5D2 (like comparing the T2i to the 7D). Honestly, if we assume DSLRs are technology products like many other tech products (point-n-shoots, cell phones, televisions, computers, etc.), then, over the course of several years, we should EXPECT better technology for the same price (or expect significantly lower prices for the same technology). I'm not giving Canon a pass because they improved on a several-year-old camera. There aren't many consumer products that don't see relatively significant price reductions over the course of several years, or at least that don't see significant upgrades for similar prices.
We, as consumers, should demand more. I still maintain that the 5D3 should be <= $3k. I'm not a professional, nor do I make big $$, so $3500 is a significant chunk of change for me. If I had a 5D2, I couldn't see myself justifying spending $3500 (+ tax) for the 5D3. I currently have a 60D, and I've been looking to jump up to FF, but I'd rather get a budget FF (<$2k) with 3-4 fps, less sophisticated AF and AE, etc.; I may end up with a 5D2 assuming the price drops.