maxotics

Well, that is my point, if you are skilful and ambitious enough, it will not look like crap.
 
I'd prefer a GH3, some good lighting and, say, a cheap Movi alternative... Than a RED Epic Dragon with just a tripod.

Magic Lantern has 27,000 members.  Let's say there are another 23,000 videographers who read EOS-HD, DP-REVIEW or nothing.  Let's put hard-core DSLR video users, both professional, semi-professional and hobbyist at 50,000.  Canon sold 9 million DSLR like cameras this year.  I assume Nikon sold a similar amount. The U.S. is over 300 million, even 10% of that is 30 million.  Even if Canon looks at their numbers only 50,000 / 9,000,000 equals 0.5 %, that's half of one percent. 
 
There are many ways one can try to increase market-share by 0.5%. I'm sure there are many good reasons why RAW like video is not it.  It's in the numbers.

Fwiw, shooting raw video on my 4 year old 50d blows the doors off anything "current" with h264. That includes my hacked gh2. Andrew is correct: the big Japanese camera manufacturers need to innovate or get the fuck out of the way.

Andrew, I think you're overlooking engineering issues that are pulling the market apart, between DLSR for photos, and cameras for video.
 
A DSLR is designed to use a large sensor to get the richest color from wide angle lenses on up.  The physical constraints of diffraction and focal length cannot be marketed away.  In other words, an APS-C sized and above sensor will provide the  high resolution still photographs, better than any smaller sensor, from MFTs on down (in 4:3) aspect.
 
What that means, of course, is that you must skip sensor lines to maintain the same focal length (EDIT: 5D3 samples whole sensor to avoid this; electronic requirements may be expensive).  So DSLRs are primarily high resolution photo cameras.  If they don't skip lines they have to use crop mode which increase focal length.  Then you can get moire-less video, but again, at the cost of focal length and you put the lens under great resolving strain.
 
Yes, the MFT cameras do great video, but mostly because they use small sensors that don't skip lines and are optimized for video.  As photo cameras they are not as good as large sensor cameras, mostly because of physics (of light and sensor design).  No professional photographer would pick an MFT camera over a full-frame.  
 
I'm with you in spirit on the article.  But I think you have to temper expectations with some engineering realities.
 
I spend every day working on my 50D RAW (which you turned me onto) and an EOS-M.  The real question is whether manufacturers believe there is a market in high color depth, dynamic range in consumer equipment.  I believe there is.  I hope there is!

Quick and dirty, as others have pointed out above,
Nikon DSLR is higher quality photos, lower quality video
G6 is higher quality video, lower quality photos.

And there's no free lunch!
 
A couple of days was another illustration of what you're talking about.  A band was playing up the block.  I took my 50D and EOS-M to shoot RAW.  The card immediately filled on the 50D (and later discovered that the file got corrupted so I still haven't been able to view it).  I shot a little RAW with the EOS-M but then figured the kids might want a video on one complete song.  So I put it on H.264, put my toy lens on, and shot the whole thing.
 
Of ALL the videos I've posted I've gotten the most likes and comments about that one.  And they're all right.  I was having fun.  The camera wasn't getting in the way of what and how I wanted to shoot it.

Not owning either camera, I feel this is my sweet spot of expertise :)  The clips I see from the 5Dmiii are staggeringly good.  ML is probably more stable for that camera because the users are more professional.  HOWEVER, my general experience with ML RAW is that the devs spend 98% of their time on new features and 2% of their time on stability.  So if you are going to use ML RAW, once you have your camera working the way you want it DO NOT CHANGE hacks in the middle of your project.  

Just what the world needs, more vimeo videos on "artisans" with even shallower DOF.

HI, I watched your reel.  Very nice!  You're a professional and, as a tinkerer,  I'm not going to tell you your business :)  
 
However, if you don't mind, I think you're letting certain COMPLETELY justified frustrations get in the way of your adopting this technology.
 
In my experience (and again, i qualify that as a hobbyist), grading is not the primary benefit of RAW.  After all, as you point out, nothing happens if you can't get the rightly lit, prepared shot in the first place.
 
Also, bit-rate is a price you pay for RAW, it is not a reason to do it.  Again, you're right about everything, but... (baby with bathwater?)
 
RAW gives you is the look of natural lighting and skin tones.   Have you worked with a RED, Alexa, BM, Magic Lantern RAW, etc?  If you have, and if all the negatives you talked about were not there (for the sake of argument) which image would you prefer?  I believe, looking at your reel, that you, especially, would prefer RAW shooting.  You shoot natural light, often single source, with much shadow detail.  You're not gimmicky.
 
Please don't take offense, but I believe you would have lowered the contrast in many of your videos, if you could have.  The video cameras you use make images artificially bright because that's what the CODECs are tuned for to write at certain bit-rates.
 
I'm not here to question you.  I'm here to say, give them a try.  Don't let a bunch of knuckleheads cloud your judgement.  Everything you say is true, but if may not matter once you fairly balance the pros and cons.  I leave you with a poem that I read when younger, about others who had creative blind spots:
 
A Pact
I make a pact with you, Walt Whitman - 
I have detested you long enough.
I come to you as a grown child
Who has had a pig-headed father;
I am old enough now to make friends.
It was you that broke the new wood,
Now is a time for carving.
We have one sap and one root - 
Let there be commerce between us. 
Ezra Pound

They want to sell what they can develop relatively easily, CODECs and chips, instead of what really diminishes the quality of most video, from production to display--low dynamic range and as NTSC used to be mocked as, "Never The Same Color" twice.  That said, I doubt consumer video will change much, in that regard.  Data requirements just too high.  What Panasonic could do is allow Vitaliy to hack the GH line into producing RAW video.  Doubt that would ever be a press release though!

Non of them.  I have a Nikon D600.  No complaints as a still camera.  The video is no different, far as I can tell, from video from their D7000, or even D3100.  I would be concerned about matching footage from a high dynamic range camera (the BMCC) and contrasty video which is a Nikon after-thought from their camera. 
 
Here is an idea of what you'll be up against, in matching footage.
 
https://vimeo.com/73096779

So yesterday I take my daughter and her friend shopping.  They're juniors as MassArt.  The friend saved money to buy a T31.  I had with me a hacked 50D, shooting RAW video.  You'd think they'd be into it.  They just rolled their eyes.  Anyway, she's saying she needs a PC for animation.  I say I have at extra one.  "You can save money." ... She says "That's what my Dad would say"  She starts going on about needing a powerful computer for this and that and I try to tell her, for tethered stills capture from an EOS camera you don't need a powerful computer.  Long story short, most kids in school, like everywhere in life, aren't interested in all the technical stuff.  The kids hacking their cameras are usually, God Bless Them, drop-outs :)  I'm sure I'm at least getting laughs from Pandetta!
 
So you'll have to excuse me Julian, I'm a beaten down Dad and it infects my posts and rationality ;)  

Some people always only see the surface of the thing. I have a fellow student who just bought a BMCC 2.5k. I'm sure he has been reading how amazing RAW and 2.5K is. However, I don't think he has considered the amount of accessories he needs to operate the camera comfortably, I would say. External batteries, SSD drives, SDI monitor, camera rig,etc. And we haven't covered the post production yet. We all know the ungraded BMCC raw footage is dull and flat. You need to grade the picture to maximize the image quality. The work behind it is just.... On the other hand though, I've tried the ML raw on my 60D in 720p. I found the footages are quite nice and even better then 1080p in H.264. The color is natural and vibrant compared to H.264. I don't feel like I have to do extensive color correction and grading to make it look good. I also noticed the noise of the RAW is much more pleasing and very film grain like while the H.264 is just blocky purple digital sickness.... I always wet myself when I see some lovely film grain....and with anamorphic, it is just pure porn...