It seems Canon didn't see it that way:
"Professional photographers and advanced amateurs have been demanding higher performance and more diverse functions in their cameras, and Canon has answered – with the new EOS 7D."
Released when the 50D was the highest level of APS-C: Canon's new EOS 50D bridges the gap between the novice and the seasoned pro with a perfect combination of high-speed and quality.
The 7D closed that gap further for Canon, giving a body that feel in between the 50D and the 5D II.
Many complained when the 60D released that it was dumbed down from what you could do with the 50D. It was, most likely they didn't want it competing with the 7D.
The 7D line was not a specialty camera or a specific tool. Photographers that believe in the crop "reach fairy" bought in to the idea that it was a specialty animal to give more reach.
I bought in to this line and bought a 7D, after a few months I realized the illusion and bought a 1D IV. The "reach fairy" is a myth created to sell more crop bodies.
If I would have had one thing to change in the progression I bought digital cameras I would have never owned an APS-C body. Those 4 bodies would have paid for an R3. I put the R7 on preorder on its release the other morning, I came to my senses a few hours later and canceled.
You're quoting the sales pitch, not the possible conversations from the board room that centered on what market sector each model was aimed at. All one needs to do is look at the mode dial to see the real difference in design philosophy between the two. Even though you claim the 7D Mark II could do everything the 70D and 80D could, the latter two had all kinds of Scene modes that were not available on the 7D Mark II.
The powers that be at Canon decided to split the x0D line into a more general purpose camera with more attractive pricing (the 60D) and a more robust and speed oriented line in the 7D.
I don't know where you get "the reach fairy" from anything I've said above. The advantage of the 7D concept for certain types of sports, action, and wildlife shooting was the pixel density, not the sensor size. But the smaller sensor size allowed more speed with that higher pixel density by reducing the needed data throughput at a time when data throughput seemed to drive the cost of many cameras from not only Canon but everyone else at the time.
When the 7D was introduced in 2009 Canon was still three years away from unifying the "speed" 1D line with the "resolution" 1Ds line in 2012 with the release of the 1D X.
I don't blame you at all for being disappointed with the original 7D. A lot of us were. Even though it was only 15 MP and had only 9 AF points, I got better pictures from the 50D than from the original 7D. The shot-to-shot inconsistency of the AF system was its Achilles' heel. The 18MP sensor was noisy. But it did show potential in spite of its flaws. And in spite of its flaws, it did allow one to shoot night and indoor sports under relatively dim light with a 70-200/2.8 instead of with a 300/2.8 plus another wider lens (like the aforementioned 70-200 on another body). Not only was a 7D + 70-200/2.8 cheaper than a 1D + 300/2.8 and another body with a shorter zoom, it was also a lot lighter.
The 7D Mark II was everything the 7D should have been. AF was much more accurate and consistent from shot-to-shot in Servo tracking mode. IQ was much better than the 7D. It was built like a tank and has taken punishment I'd have never though it could. For November 2014 it was a lot of camera for less than $1,800. By June of 2015 I picked mine up from B&H for only $1,499 with an extra third party Watson LP-E6N and a small/medium camera bag thrown in.
)
www.usa.canon.com
