Jack - in all honesty I have shot RAWs a good deal in the past, and just never saw significant differences when in print, and looking at a foot or so away. Yes, maybe some exist on the monitor, if you can be an expert converter user, but have been doing this awhile and I just don't see it. Not saying there isn't any, just I have not been able to appreciate this difference in print. YMMV. I think lots of times things may be empirically better given perfect light, shooting techniques, etc, but hard to realise in prints. Don't get me started on the professional Cibas I used to have made by commercial labs and what they considered PRO prints....sorry to digress.
Often times perfection is lost by not having perfect light, or opportunity to get the shot as one would like. I would OTOH, love to see two such large prints realizing the differences that often are mentioned, but using the same CS3or CS4 interface for converting files as RAW files. BTW - I spend quite a bit of time converting the jpg many do from Raw, but many times the jpegs get me in the ball park quicker due to the fact I have taken the time to set up the camera properly with attention to things like histogram and WB. There are always compromises...but mine are compact AF zooms and moderate amount of modern advantages like IS or VR. I remember quite a few missed shots with the 4x5, I used to shoot, due to changing lenses or loading film, let alone setup. Not meaning to be ornery or confrontatinal here, but we all have different needs and solutions.
Not sure I understand the comment about just using a 50D combo, were you making a comment about this cameras plusses for my intended useage? Were you commenting about the advantages of the 5D2 combo being lost just because I shoot jpegs or I don't want to invest in big heavy L glass? After looking at some websites, that compare lenses and body combos, I feel the way to go might just be the 5D2 and just the 70-200L but am still looking for opinions from users such as Greg who uses both FF and APS-c cameras. No one really asked, just assumed from previous posts and images in the gallery, people know I shoot mostly travel scenics and landscapes, so I don't really have a need for more then 300mm. If I did, then I would certainly invest in an appropriate lens for that usage.