I must be on a different planet... where I come from, a single digit Canon DSLR was always universally considered a high end product. I feel like I"m lucky to have a high end example of digital optical technology like my 6DII , and a its a 'mark' no less!
I read about something like this a few years ago in a book, something about how luxury brands are in a race to the bottom where globalization and technology have removed the financial barriers to their products causing a series of pros and cons. Sad to see Canon go down this route but in a way their stratification let me hit my goal of a 'full frame' camera quicker. Short of being a professional or just having $$$ to burn the 6D Mark II that I got for $1499 (plus free 13 month Canon Carepak + free battery grip) is really most I'd spend anyway. In the end, at that price - Canon connected the dots; more so than other brands - they got the sale.
I suspect that is why they have 50% of the market and something tells me they will remain there even after they release their FF mirrorless body.
We've been hearing that a long time. For instance, Canon's "DR deficiency" has been decried by some parties for years, but sales have actually increased relative to the competition. It would seem that the importance of the Canon-critical press (DPR, YouTubers, a few forum goers here and elsewhere) isn't that great when it comes to the camera-buying public.
Since the pixel pitch is nearly identical, if one crops the 5Ds to the same size as the 7D Mark II, the results will be near identical as well. A FF sensor has no inherent advantages over an APS-C sensor if the images from both are enlarged by the same factor. The advantage of a FF vs. an APS-C sensor is all based on the lower enlargement ratio needed to get to the same display size.