As usual, pretty much agreement.
First, this "rumor" is not a CR anything. It's a report of something from a Web site or sites of unknown credibility. When Craig puts his number on something, then I'll think it's worth talking about.
Essentially, this sounds like my alternative to the high price of the 5D3. As you point out, we know nothing of the sensor. If high ISO is comparable to other Canon FF products, that will be worth a lot. Also, since it's a "new" sensor, perhaps they've done a better job with the low ISO. I still want a sensor that will give me at ISO 100 what I could get reliably with film at ASA 25 or 50. The noise at ISO 100 on a 7D, for instance, reminds me of film at ASA 400. I'm not buying that.
The weak part of this story is the AF. Canon would have to furnish at least a 7D comparable AF with this product. Less than that will not work for me.
As always, I'm standing by. Waiting for facts to show up.
Really? So much over-reaction to rumored specs. Are we going to have to endure the same months and months of endless whining that occurred when the 5DIII was released?
Whatever Canon releases will be comparably spec'd and comparably priced to the 600D. It won't be identical, but comparable enough to compete, which is what this is all about.
As for the rumored specs, people seem to be reading them in the worst possible light. They describe a camera that is weather-sealed, has some magnesium framework (like the 600D), a slightly better autofocus than the 5DII, a slightly better frame rate and the latest processor. It is introduced at a price that is about $600-$700 less than the 5DII was introduced at. Is that so horrible?
We know nothing about the sensor itself, which means we know nothing about the quality of the images. Would opinions change if the camera performs at high ISO somewhere between the 5DII and the 5DIII?
Reminds me of the complaints when the 60D came out. People wanted all the 7D features for $1,000. Now people want the 5DIII features at $2,000.