Rattle said:
I don't know many sports, real stuff not staged, photographers who long for a FF body.
This is a very important point - full frame is another front for marketing, something like a new megapixel battle. I'm not sure Canon makes as much headway on chip development for full frame versus APS-C sized, but the $900-$1000 difference over even the 7D that the 5D Mark II commands currently is an incentive for Canon.
More an incentive to release the 5D Mark III first: The features of the 5D Mark II are becoming dated by some standards (control layout possibly, autofocus module obviously, video features arguably - higher framerates would be very useful to many shooters and higher sensitivity is always a good thing).
On the 1Ds front, the current camera in the segment does what it's supposed to do - it has a well-regarded autofocus system and good basic characteristics for sports and press photographers.
So despite what many folks say the 5D has much more mass market appeal to many - a good balance of features and cost that make it appealing to people working in all sorts of areas.
Rattle said:
Out of sheer curiosity what are you shooting that would require you to move from a point and shoot to a medium format and have you actually looked at what that is going to set you back. Me thinks I am talking to a troll. If not then explain yourself.
Not worth the trouble. I think the medium format companies (the few and fewer left) have better use of their marketing money than posting unpersuasive gripes on CR, so I doubt there's anything of substance to consider.