I really don't understand why an inferior movie capability was added to the 5D. Sure, it's nice to have for those people who can buy a 5D to take pictures of their family and as a hobby, and have the movie capability as an extra, but why would a pro photographer need a video camera in his or her camera, and an inferior one at that? You can probably get much better quality buying a Sony digital video camera for 600 bucks.
That option definitely doesn't move me at all. It's as if Canon is just packing on whatever they can to raise the "wow" factor even when it does not help photography.
What would sell me is if the new 5D has lower noise than the 1DS3, along the lines of the Nikon D3. I'm not a sports shooter so nearly 4FPS is good enough for me, but if I were shooting sports I think I may rather have the 50D for the reach it gives, and the price.
I would much rather have seen the 5D w/no video camera and pro weather sealing.
If Canon didn't cripple the 5DII's ability to shoot max frame rates, that would indicate to me that the new Digic 4 processor is not as powerful as two Digic 3s, as in the 1DS3. But that also means two Digic 4s would be lots more powerful than two Digic3s.
Also, if the new 5D does not compete with the Nikon D3 in ISO noise levels, then the 5D may not compete with the D3 at all, since the D3 is a pro built and sealed camera and it's real selling point is it's ultra low noise at extremely--insanely--high ISO settings. For photo journalist, the indoor, low light capability of the D3 is now a competitive necessity; ditto for wedding photographers.
I'm not going to comment anymore on the 5DMKII until DP does their side by side testing. We'll know for sure what the real difference is between the cameras.