Some of these specs appear to be reasonable, but some other parts make me question, if these specs are for real, because I feel it may be too good to be true.
Here's my take:
The 7D delivered many professional camera features, but it was available at a rather low price (compared to a 1D Mark IV). At that time the difference between a 1D Mark IV and a 7D (although obvious) was less pronounced as it is now with the 1D-X being full-frame and even faster. A successor to the 7D may thus be upgraded to the point of this being a rather affordable sports camera, possibly less effective compared to the 1D Mark IV, but coming closer. A 7D Mark II may therefore be in a similar position compared to the 1D-X as the 7D was to the 1D Mark IV.
Would this be wise? Obviously 7D Mark II sales would not cut into any 1D Mark IV sales and I believe they would not negatively affect 1D-X sales either. On the other hand Canon would likely sell more tele lenses, especially shorter ones. You can get easily into compulsive repetitive lens purchase mode with such a camera, buying a 135mm f2 (instead of 200 f2), then buying a 300mm f4 or 300mm f2.8 (instead of a 400mm f5.6 or 400mm f2.
. Then people may get into birding and buy longer lenses as well.
Poll