Damn - I didn't get the memo where you asked me my opinion about that.
Just to reiterate what has already been said (not that it really needs it):
- you don't speak for "everyone";
- what you want doesn't automatically become what "many/most" users want; and
- I didn't ask you. I apologize for that oversight. ;-)
- I don't speak for anyone else.
- I don't know what most/many users want.
- I should prefaced that with an "I think" rather than present it some sort of fact (it is pure conjecture)
- My wish list does not become what many or most want and certainly does not become camera reality.
So in short, I apologize for the "many/most" statement and retract it.
Again, I didn't start this thread to debate the features of the 5DMkIII or to nit-pick over the evolution of Canon AF tech - though that's what it has become.
I tried to take a genuine stab at the question of how Canon let themselves get surpassed in the area of "sensors brought to market" by a competitor. Specifically, the Sony FF sensor in the Nikon D800.
I firmly believe that if Canon could produce such a sensor at scale, it would have been in the 5DMkIII. I do not know why they could not. I took a guess.
For me, the sensor is like film. In my photographic purchases over the past 25 years or so, I've placed the emphasis on getting the best glass, OEM ED and L, rather than getting the body with the most features or most rugged construction. I came up using spots meters, the Zone system and careful film calibration. I worked with commercial labs for weeks or months with each particular chrome film until I could predict exactly what it would do in almost every lighting situation, ASA and processing push - how much DR, true speed, grain, color shift, etc. I knew Fuji chromes (and TMax) like the back of my hand.
Fast forward to the digital age. My "film" is the sensor. I shoot RAW. Body produced JPEGS are for my previews and occasional tight newspaper deadlines. The body is only a means to get my L glass in front of that sensor. I want the highest resolution, lowest noise and greatest DR I can, because that what is I would demand of my film.
Digital is evolving quickly. I have tended to buy bodies with disposability in mind - knowing that in 2-3 years I would dump it for an improved sensor package, not because I'm a gadget freak, but because the sensor is the film, and if better film is out there, I want to use it - like when Fuji produced Velvia 100 and I stopped using 100D or when Fuji came out improved 400 D, I stopped using the older 400.
So when my system manufacturer, Canon, fails to keep up in sensor tech in a given model revision, I wondered why. Not that the 5MkIIII doesn't have many fine features. It does. What I think it lacks is the best "film" on the market.