I think you misunderstood the statement. It is not me who says or cares what they want. It is taking an overview of what potential buyers are demanding, while still saying $1500-1800 is what they are willing to pay. So in this regard, they are being unrealistic is what $1800 can buy in a camera that has most of the subsystems and body of a pro camera. The specs demanded cause the price to be higher that they are likely to be willing to spend by their own admission. How many would pay $2500 or more for a camera that did most of what was desired?
A scan of other forums reveals that the D7100 is getting blasted for leaving a few things out, so you can imagine the commotion that a camera that is being imagined as the best DX can muster will meet if it does not meet all the overheated expectations. If a DX really could be produced with all the features expected, I might be interested myself and would expect to pay closer to D800 prices than D600 prices. The camera with the closest specs of course is the D4 so maybe it will be closer to that price. For all the moaning that Canon will take the market with the 7DII, asking shooters whether they REALLY want the IQ and shallow files of the 7D in exchange for the proposed speed. Nothing in the Nikon line fails to produce better quieter files than the 7D, quite likely their best all round camera. No banding, or strange artifacts in the shadows that can't be boosted would be tolerated by Nikon shooters. Different priorities. If Canon continues with the trend of adding detail robbing full time raw NR, like the 5DIII in an attempt to appear competitive with Nikon's high ISO image quality, the gulf between the brands will just expand. The D7100 and possible D400 will have no direct competitor in the Canon line, same as now. Stan St Petersburg Russia