And, obviously, the users don't want:
- larger viewfinder coverage (even though it's not at pro spec)
- better dynamic range
- better colour depth
- better low-light ISO
- live view
- bigger and better LCD screen
- bigger print size
- AF microadjustment (ok, so it's of limited use, but better than nothing)
- sensor cleaning
- two extra custom modes
- IR remote
- improved battery status and battery info for individual batteries
- permanent ISO display in viewfinder
- CF+ and UDMA cards
- dedicated AF-on button
- creative auto mode
- potentially faster autofocus (allegedly better AF processing)
Some things are just different, like the battery, battery grip, wireless grip, etc.
While not all of these may be interesting to you, personally, I don't see that your claim of "trash" can be warranted. The current (and serious!) concerns regarding water resistance non-withstanding.
If this camera's new features are such big problems for you, just don't buy the camera! Buy the old model, used, in 5-packs, if you want.
But this kind of whining is just silly.
So Jani, are you married to your 5D mark II? Just curious, as you obviously were upset by someone's "whining". You took it so, so personal.
And what good are all those nice "features" you listed if most are not required?
At the end of the day, the same crud AF mechanism & logic was used, and nearly the same DR, and the frame-rate is just a nit faster. Sure, it provides 1-2 stops less noise and that is great, but I'm going to skip this one for the Mark III or IV, in the hope that the replacement will provide 1D type AF (remember the EOS-3 film body), 45 FP's and at least 1-2 stops wider DR. All this hoping aside, the Mark II is just a tad better then the Mark I with a lot of "nice to have" features, but only a few "gotta haves". Big deal!