you forgot way higher resolution as well.
I have had my hands on the 7D and it is pimp. The ISO performance alone warrants a SERIOUS look.
I was shooting 3200 and it looked like 800 on my mkII. 6400 is noisy but usable if NR and maybe converted to B[HTML_REMOVED]W or for web use.
Bottom line, a 2 stop difference in performance in ISO at print quality.
The AF tracks like a mofo. Seriously. It kills it.
The small body goes either way. Kinda sucks for overall balance in the hands, but then again it's nice to have something a bit more stealth than a MK II in your hands sometimes.
For me, the reality is this:
I have a mkII and have used the shit out of it. I would love a mk4 but don't have 5-6grand to buy one. The 7D will fit my usages (And yours and mine are similar). I generally don't wind my mkII out at 8.5 frames a second a lot, and if I do I end up dropping every second frame in the sequences I build just due to the overlap.
Add HD video for kicks and it's a very powerful tool.
downfalls:
Crop.
Weather sealing (But really you can get a cover)
Highlights:
PRICE
ISO
Image Quality
Focus Speed
Screen size and quality
added HD
when I get some dough a 7D will be top of the list.
All that being said 1dmkIIn = $1000-1300 used
1dmk3 = 1800-2400 depending on condition
Dec 2006 photo contest winner "Best Ass Shot"
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein