Until last month I shot Canon. I love the Nikon full frame cameras and prefer the lens lineup to that on Nikon, it was just that for my use, the D800 did everything that the 5D3 and does it better. However, both camps have top of the line crop cameras, that really don't deserve that position in the lineup as technology has moved on so far since their release.
When Nikon's bottom of the line D3200 produces better image quality than either of the current crop flagships, that's when both systems need an update, is all I'm saying. Buying a 7D is like buying a 1D2 now, which is something that really should not be true for a camera that's still available new.
Also on the grain front, Canon noise is awful if you pull stuff out of the shadows in post, and even shooting normally it's quite ugly when it's present. Lightroom's grain is much nicer. I've been watching Lara Jade recently and the number of times she's pushed ISO to say 800, because she likes "that film like vintage feel that you get from the grain" has started to get infuriating, particularly given how adept she is in photoshop otherwise and the fact she adds grain in post anyway.
I think the problem is, the 7D is good in every aspect that differentiates a pro camera from a consumer camera, but then its sensor is worse than most consumer cameras nowadays. As a result, consumers don't stand to gain much from buying it, because they don't necessarily need the build quality, autofocus etc., and pros don't stand to gain much because it's quite limited in what it can shoot outside of perfect light - there's no point being able to focus at -2Ev if all you're photographing is noise.
People shopping at the £700 mark rarely have much to gain from the pro-oriented features of the 7d and more to gain from a sensor that can handle ISO etc. better as they're not likely to be exposing properly, using fast glass etc.
