there will be a 3D anyway for people wanting fast fps, full frame goodness.
i think there is an easy explanation for much of the disappointment. A lot of people (myself included) were not looking for a spiritual successor to the 5D, but were wanting Canon to provide a direct competitor to the Nikon D700, compact body, full frame sensor, great noise, fast AF and fast FPS.
I'm very confident there is a large market for a Canon body like this, the 1D III is too big, too professional and still has a cropped sensor. The 50D has the frame rate and compact body but no full frame.
PMA '09, 16mp, 6-8fps, FF 3D/7D
I do understand the D700 argument, my friend has one and its very very nice indeed, not quite as good as the D3 but its not exactly bad to be second to such a body for £1000 cheaper, my friend decided on saving the £1k and putting it towards a brand new £5k 400mm F2.8 Nikon, which is also georgeous.
On the other hand, whilst the D700 offers 12MP, 8fps and full frame. I still struggle to see why somebody would want full frame and 8fps.. Anybody who REALLY wants full frame, will most likley be interested in Landscape/Portrait work. Anyone who wants a fast framerate would most likley be concerned with action/sports.
I think it really demands 2 totally different cameras, I think the 5D MkII for the Landscape/portrait, (nice big files, stacks of detail) and the D50 for the action/sports, or if you need really good AF to drive a big lens, the 1D M3 for sports
. (although the 1D M3 is 10MP, the IQ at under ISO 800 is currently one of the best around)
I don't believe that many photographers who were planning to "dabble" in many different types of photography would be up for spending D700/5D cash anyway, most of them would stick to D300/40D/50D territory, if they weren't specialising.
Its most likley that somebody planning to drop £2k on a body and associated lenses, already has a fair idea of their work and what they do, and what they want whether its fps or IQ, and if you're a Canon shooter, you have plenty of choice depending on what you do.
With Nikon they have 2 pretty much identical cameras, a D3 which is cracking and a D700 which is pretty much the same, apart from none pro build, and not as good noise processing and a few other things.... But they don't bring anything different to the photographer other than dragging a few bits off the flagship camera into a cheaper camera for a cheaper price.
Canon in my opinion have put themselves in a good position because theres plenty of choice, from full frame 20+MP to fast fps crop bodies.