forofilms

You have obviously never used these cameras. When in capable hands they can be more than just capable tools. GH4 is far more operator-friendly than a 5Dmiii. a6300 works well when used in the right way. Overheats, yes, but the results are stunning. 
In all seriousness, do you work for Canon?
The specs are underwhelming, the codec is a prehistoric albatross and the crop is certainly not welcomed. 

Here at EOSHD forums we are a highly-specialized, niche segment of the market. We speak and critique from that perspective.
I really don't care what the weekend warriors, vloggers, Japanese tourists and moonlighting wedding photographers do with their resources and purchasing decisions. 
I'm sure Canon will sell well. That's not what we're discussing. The question to debate is whether the 5Dmiv is a competent tool for this community and whether it delivers the performance and value that we would expect from a $3200-3800 body.   
Canon is free to turn up their noses at any segment they wish - yes, they will still sell to the hordes - but we are free to critique their merchandise and when we feel it's not up to par in the marketplace, free to state so. Just because they sell tons of cameras doesn't necessarily mean their cameras are adequate tools for sophisticated hybrid shooters. This is the perspective I'm critiquing them from. 
Sony is releasing products geared to what you call a "tiny tiny tiny minority" - now why do you think such a big company is focusing on such a "tiny" segment? I guess Sony is jsut stupid, right?

But because of this segmentation, some consumers (such as myself) are not purchasing Canon bodies. Yes, I could invest into the cinema line, but I'd paying more for the equivalent I get in Sony and I lose the stills capability.
The segment that Canon is choosing to ignore is the hybrid shooter out there who has a need for sophisticated video features. Sony (and Panasonic to a lesser degree) is exploiting this segment because of it.
Yes, Sony products are far from perfect. But where else can you get a full frame, 4k camera with video assist features and log that can competently shoot stills? Is that too much to ask in 2016? Is that too much to ask from Canon?

No, it's because they're invested up to the eyeballs in Canon glass. 
Okay, fair enough. but just don't lie, man. Don't tell me its a competitive offering when it comes to video features. Don't try and tell me or anyone here that we don't need log and peaking at a $3500 price. Don't tell me the MJPEG codec is innovative. And certainly, don't tell me that crop is "welcomed" on piece of kit at this price point.  

Here at EOSHD forums we are a highly-specialized, niche segment of the market. We speak and critique from that perspective.
I really don't care what the weekend warriors, vloggers, Japanese tourists and moonlighting wedding photographers do with their resources and purchasing decisions. 
I'm sure Canon will sell well. That's not what we're discussing. The question to debate is whether the 5Dmiv is a competent tool for this community and whether it delivers the performance and value that we would expect from a $3200-3800 body.   
Canon is free to turn up their noses at any segment they wish - yes, they will still sell to the hordes - but we are free to critique their merchandise and when we feel it's not up to par in the marketplace, free to state so. Just because they sell tons of cameras doesn't necessarily mean their cameras are adequate tools for sophisticated hybrid shooters. This is the perspective I'm critiquing them from. 
Sony is releasing products geared to what you call a "tiny tiny tiny minority" - now why do you think such a big company is focusing on such a "tiny" segment? I guess Sony is jsut stupid, right?

lol quite obviously. we are talking top bill FF DSLR versus a consumer pocket camera without even a viewfinder. I'd never consider a A6300 over my 5D3 or even a 6D. Too many compromises on usage but fact remains that sony gives access to full readout APS-C 4K, zebra/peaking & S-Log3 for $1K. Add a speedbooster and it's FF 4K! And of course native FF 4K with clean 4K HDMI output, EVF, SLOG, IBIS etc.. for $3K on the A7S2.  Sony offers all this, even though they also have a pricey FS cinema cam line. So my point is simply that Canon could include a few of these goodies on their 3.800 euro flagship 5D4. But no dice. Also, sorry for beating a dead horse here but 1.7x crop is just a real bummer. I buy a Full Frame for a Full Frame look/experience. It becomes even more important with 4K where you'd like the possibility of a jump-in crop in full HD timeline. Well now on the 5D4, my 35mm 1.4 L becomes a 60mm native in 4K.. and my widest 24mm L becomes a 40mm..  that just makes me cringe..

No, it's because they're invested up to the eyeballs in Canon glass. 
Okay, fair enough. but just don't lie, man. Don't tell me its a competitive offering when it comes to video features. Don't try and tell me or anyone here that we don't need log and peaking at a $3500 price. Don't tell me the MJPEG codec is innovative. And certainly, don't tell me that crop is "welcomed" on piece of kit at this price point.  

Here at EOSHD forums we are a highly-specialized, niche segment of the market. We speak and critique from that perspective.
I really don't care what the weekend warriors, vloggers, Japanese tourists and moonlighting wedding photographers do with their resources and purchasing decisions. 
I'm sure Canon will sell well. That's not what we're discussing. The question to debate is whether the 5Dmiv is a competent tool for this community and whether it delivers the performance and value that we would expect from a $3200-3800 body.   
Canon is free to turn up their noses at any segment they wish - yes, they will still sell to the hordes - but we are free to critique their merchandise and when we feel it's not up to par in the marketplace, free to state so. Just because they sell tons of cameras doesn't necessarily mean their cameras are adequate tools for sophisticated hybrid shooters. This is the perspective I'm critiquing them from. 
Sony is releasing products geared to what you call a "tiny tiny tiny minority" - now why do you think such a big company is focusing on such a "tiny" segment? I guess Sony is jsut stupid, right?

No, it's because they're invested up to the eyeballs in Canon glass. 
Okay, fair enough. but just don't lie, man. Don't tell me its a competitive offering when it comes to video features. Don't try and tell me or anyone here that we don't need log and peaking at a $3500 price. Don't tell me the MJPEG codec is innovative. And certainly, don't tell me that crop is "welcomed" on piece of kit at this price point.  

You have obviously never used these cameras. When in capable hands they can be more than just capable tools. GH4 is far more operator-friendly than a 5Dmiii. a6300 works well when used in the right way. Overheats, yes, but the results are stunning. 
In all seriousness, do you work for Canon?
The specs are underwhelming, the codec is a prehistoric albatross and the crop is certainly not welcomed. 

But because of this segmentation, some consumers (such as myself) are not purchasing Canon bodies. Yes, I could invest into the cinema line, but I'd paying more for the equivalent I get in Sony and I lose the stills capability.
The segment that Canon is choosing to ignore is the hybrid shooter out there who has a need for sophisticated video features. Sony (and Panasonic to a lesser degree) is exploiting this segment because of it.
Yes, Sony products are far from perfect. But where else can you get a full frame, 4k camera with video assist features and log that can competently shoot stills? Is that too much to ask in 2016? Is that too much to ask from Canon?

Doesn't change the fact that it's poor customer service. 
You're right, people should expect Canon to not pander to their lobbying. Live with Canon's shoddy response or shift loyalties to another company. 
Canon's ecosystem is keeping customers around but the more they continue to underwhelm and the more that competing companies innovate and address peoples needs, it's inevitable they're going to see some attrition over time. 
But let's admit it, to not add a line of code to provide peaking and zebras is just a bitch-slap to the face. 

It seems 4K is guaranteed by the trusted sources. Lack of Clog is pretty much guaranteed too, but other nice profiles will be available.
TBH I've shot c-log in anger once in the years I've had C100s and that was with external recorder, as long as there's as something like VisionColor it'll have nice options.
The biggest issue is the lack of usability software, like peaking and zebras and so on. If it doesn't have these basics, it'll be a pretty poor choice for many video situations.
Buying it because you hope Magic Lantern will hack it is not good for anyone. It tells Canon it's fine to not bother adding essential features and it leaves the purchaser with a half functioning camera and fingers crossed.
Canon apologists are becoming a bit like Apple fanboys, who throw themselves on the altar everytime they're given a kick in the nuts and tell everyone how "it's actually a good thing it has no ports and has half the power of a PC and cost me twice as much".
I can hear it now "I actually like not having peakeing, I can work hard to focus, I don't need proper video controls, this frees my creativity to think about the image". You're not fooling anyone, theoretical strawman fanboy I just invented.
Buying a camera is not the time to turn the other, already rather sore, cheek.

It's also almost impossible to predict if a lens is going to appreciate in value. Certainly small flange depth lenses won't hold their value as much as they're significantly harder to adapt.
Older lenses like Super Baltars and Zeiss Super/Standard Speeds, Cooke Panchros, Lomos etc. have seen their values increase hugely, thanks in part to the lust and want for 'older' glass for a specific look, now that we're trying to take the 'edge' off digital. In addition, the rarity of a lens adds significant value. Super Baltars haven't been made since the 70s. Zeiss Supers and Panchros since the 80s. One imagines that an older set of lenses that can cover and resolve 8k/full frame+, and are rather fast, will continue to appreciate in value as other sets break, deteriorate etc. 
Think back to the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s... how could anyone have predicted that old school 'soft' lenses would come back into fashion?
EF glass is unlikely to appreciate simply based on the fact that there's so many of them.
There's really no secret recipe. If everyone thought they knew what would appreciate in value, everyone would buy those lenses - which would stop them from appreciating as they'd be so common.
Think of the expensive Canon 50mm f0.95. Sure, they made around 20,000 units, but it's still a pretty rare lens - and that's why it's expensive. Compare it to the Helios 44-2, one of the most mass-produced lenses ever. Production on both cameras stopped a long while ago, and yet one can be had for $40 - the other $4,000.

All three look like mushy garbage. I'm saving my money until 6k comes out...

I have the 1DX2 since 10 days now.  Used to work with A7R/S2 and GH4, the size and weight and the lack of a tilting screen or peaking is a big minus.  Even on the photo side Canon did cut features like internal timelapse or the HDR function of the 5D3, which is very uncool for this price. 
But by adding a magnet viewfinder like in old 5D2 days, the 1DX2 is still a handable and can be used as one man show, with 2 outstanding advantages:  4K 60fps of course and the excellent video autofocus.  If you use it right, there is no need for manual focus or focus peaking, and shooting can be done much faster than before and can be even more fun with even sharper shots.
Amazingly the video autofocus does work very good with all Canon lenses from the last years, and also selected ones like the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC or 85/1.8 VC.  Without any logical pattern, other Tamron or Sigma lenses don't do video focus at all.  A Tamron 16-300 superzoom doesn't work although it has great stabilization paired with the 1DX2, a Sigma 18-300 does have video focus but weak stabilization.  Crop lenses don't seem to vignette with the 1.3x 4K video crop of the camera.
The photo focus features and 16fps are also very nice for certain shooting situations, although the amount of MP is low when being used to a 5DsR, 645Z or A7R2.  To me it is not an outstanding dynamic range monster and the quality difference to pics like from an RX100 IV is not huge enough.
What's missing is the whole amount of nice small E-mount lenses and stupidly no Canon crop lenses can be mounted, so a 1DX2 setup will require all the large and heavy Canon full frame lenses.  At least they work great and are a pro photo option as well, so the cominations make it an excellen allround camera.
Strange is that 4K 25fps video can be recorded on fast CF cards and doesnt require the superexpensive CFAST cards like Canon says.  In 4K 60fps mode, the CF cards do stop recording after app. 8 seconds.
All in all Canon needs to be quick to release mirrorless versions of their DSLR lineup.  At photokina Sony will release the A9 that comes with all relevant DSLR features and of course the best of the A7 world - and if this A9 camera does have 4K 60fps, there is no need for a 1DX2 anymore (and certainly not a 5D4).
 
 
 

Give me a break. We don't live in the dark ages any more - other people can test the camera and you can go view the results on youtube or vimeo. You can tell the footage coming off the 80d is glorified 720p. Other cameras have their limitations. There is no perfect camera. But there is no excuse for a company with the equity of Canon to be producing cameras that shoot soft, moire-ridden 1080p in 2016. I expect Fuji or Sigma to do this, but not Canon. Not a company with a well-established Cinema line and a low marginal cost of letting innovation trickle down to the enthusiast level if they only wanted to. I think Canon should be openly criticized for this approach and I don't need to order and go through the rigors of testing and posting low-grade footage to substantiate my frustration. The camera is intentionally hampered, the codec is outdated and the resolution is not up to snuff. I have no qualms in saying that. I've seen enough test footage posted by others - including Canon themselves - to make that determination. Those who needlessly stifle innovation deserve to be bashed. But I also expect legions of apologists like yourself to stubbornly try and find a silver lining in what they do. I don't understand it, but I nevertheless expect it.