mikegt

I guess the more you pay, the less you get ?  Don started the list of features you don't get with:
No peaking.
No zebras.
No C-Log.
Only 1080p HDMI output.
Here are some more:
No built-in WiFi, needs $600 dongle.
No articulated screen.
I also have to say what is up with the tiny screen size on such a huge, heavy premium-priced camera?  The smallest cheapest smartphones have bigger screens than this monster.  With the amount of unused space on the back of this massive camera, Canon could of incorporated a much larger screen and still would of had plenty of space left over.
My little Panasonic G7 has peaking, zebras, 4K HDMI output, built-in WiFi and an articulated screen and costs only $750 with a kit lens, versus the Canon at $6K with no lens.  The G7 even comes with a high-res OLED viewfinder.  The Canon 1D X is a better stills camera and better in low light.  But with its high price (you can buy eight G7s with eight lenses for the cost of one 1D X body), the list of missing features on the Canon is disappointing.
 

OK, I am a still photographer that has been in this game since the 60s.
I was raised in the darkroom and the magical realm that film. chemistry and paper created. I was in love with the whole process as long as I was a hobbyist.
When I became a commercial photographer and photo lab owner I longed for digital imaging. My brother ( a programmer and current head of engineering at a major photographic company) and I would dream of devices that would allow us to create repeatable images that could be printed electronically or transmitted to clients for them to use.
It was a business issue for us. We wanted more time  for making great images. Nor did we want to spend hours in the lab beating a negative into submission only to be asked to make 12 more prints exactly the same way.
When I converted my labs to digital processes in 1995 I was delighted by the quality that exceeded conventional chemical processes even then. Cameras were not there yet but scanners, software and printers were. I was able to dramatically grow my business because of quality that was head and shoulders above the performance of analog processes. So much so that even lay persons could easily see the difference.
Today, the digital process has so many advantages objectively over film production that I can scarcely justify the use of film except as an anachronistic exercise much like using wet plate process or gum bichromate. 
Film R&D stopped many years ago with only a couple of players in the market making any progress and that was to make their film stocks more compatible with scanners. Digital capture and the workflow solutions are being refined, advanced and pioneered by many companies and individuals around the world. The quality, already better will only extend its lead.
Yes film has a certain quality, it is called obsolescence. You can make digital look like film if you want but why? We are not making Kabuki here with calcified rules and traditions. We are making new imagery with a medium that now allows us higher quality and more flexibility. Many of you weren't alive when we were using film but we were always looking for better tools and techniques and not looking to go back to nitrate film and orthochromatic stock. 
Sorry, but the rationalizations I hear for film are all subjective "feel" arguments that seem to mask a fear of learning new tools.

The more I think about it the more I think celluloid motion picture film really is an environmental disaster.  Leaving aside the chemicals required to make it, processing it requires huge amounts of a witches brew of toxic chemicals - the bleach contains potassium ferricyanide, potassium bromide,ammonium thiocyanate and various acids.  The developer contains formaldehyde; the fixer ammonium and sulfur compounds.  All of these chemicals are further contaminated with heavy amounts of silver waste washed away from the film during processing.  And loads of clean water have to be consumed at each rinse step.  An 120 minute 35mm film requires at least 36,000 feet of camera negative processed (at a conservative 3:1 shooting ratio).  Back when movies were released on celluloid to theaters it took a staggering 24 million feet of release prints processed (12,000 feet per print times 2,000 theaters) for just one movie!
For digital, you need toxic chemicals to make the storage mediums, but in far smaller amounts; making a tiny memory card consumes just a drop in the bucket compared with the amounts needed to process just two hours of celluloid (12,000 feet of 35mm).  And digital storage mediums can be reused hundreds or even thousands of times, compared with the one-time use of celluloid.
 

Let's remember all the wonderful things about celluloid:
1. The lovely "bob and weave" in the image, as each frame never lands exactly in the same place as the previous one as it goes through the camera or projector gate.
2. All the sparkling dust and dirt in the image which gives it that nice "real world" feel.
3. The fine lines of scratches that appear if you dare to run your film through a projector more than once.
4. The fun of having no idea how your shots came out until a day or two later when your film comes back from the lab.
5. The marvelous megatons of toxic waste generated by photochemical processing.
6. The joy of your footage turning yellow or pink if you store it in a hot place. The fun of having to store film stock in refrigerators to stop it from going bad.
7.   The ecstasy of spending about what a Canon 5D costs to buy thirty minutes of film stock and get it processed (workprint or video transfer not included).

The more I think about it the more I think celluloid motion picture film really is an environmental disaster.  Leaving aside the chemicals required to make it, processing it requires huge amounts of a witches brew of toxic chemicals - the bleach contains potassium ferricyanide, potassium bromide,ammonium thiocyanate and various acids.  The developer contains formaldehyde; the fixer ammonium and sulfur compounds.  All of these chemicals are further contaminated with heavy amounts of silver waste washed away from the film during processing.  And loads of clean water have to be consumed at each rinse step.  An 120 minute 35mm film requires at least 36,000 feet of camera negative processed (at a conservative 3:1 shooting ratio).  Back when movies were released on celluloid to theaters it took a staggering 24 million feet of release prints processed (12,000 feet per print times 2,000 theaters) for just one movie!
For digital, you need toxic chemicals to make the storage mediums, but in far smaller amounts; making a tiny memory card consumes just a drop in the bucket compared with the amounts needed to process just two hours of celluloid (12,000 feet of 35mm).  And digital storage mediums can be reused hundreds or even thousands of times, compared with the one-time use of celluloid.
 

Let's remember all the wonderful things about celluloid:
1. The lovely "bob and weave" in the image, as each frame never lands exactly in the same place as the previous one as it goes through the camera or projector gate.
2. All the sparkling dust and dirt in the image which gives it that nice "real world" feel.
3. The fine lines of scratches that appear if you dare to run your film through a projector more than once.
4. The fun of having no idea how your shots came out until a day or two later when your film comes back from the lab.
5. The marvelous megatons of toxic waste generated by photochemical processing.
6. The joy of your footage turning yellow or pink if you store it in a hot place. The fun of having to store film stock in refrigerators to stop it from going bad.
7.   The ecstasy of spending about what a Canon 5D costs to buy thirty minutes of film stock and get it processed (workprint or video transfer not included).

The more I think about it the more I think celluloid motion picture film really is an environmental disaster.  Leaving aside the chemicals required to make it, processing it requires huge amounts of a witches brew of toxic chemicals - the bleach contains potassium ferricyanide, potassium bromide,ammonium thiocyanate and various acids.  The developer contains formaldehyde; the fixer ammonium and sulfur compounds.  All of these chemicals are further contaminated with heavy amounts of silver waste washed away from the film during processing.  And loads of clean water have to be consumed at each rinse step.  An 120 minute 35mm film requires at least 36,000 feet of camera negative processed (at a conservative 3:1 shooting ratio).  Back when movies were released on celluloid to theaters it took a staggering 24 million feet of release prints processed (12,000 feet per print times 2,000 theaters) for just one movie!
For digital, you need toxic chemicals to make the storage mediums, but in far smaller amounts; making a tiny memory card consumes just a drop in the bucket compared with the amounts needed to process just two hours of celluloid (12,000 feet of 35mm).  And digital storage mediums can be reused hundreds or even thousands of times, compared with the one-time use of celluloid.
 

The more I think about it the more I think celluloid motion picture film really is an environmental disaster.  Leaving aside the chemicals required to make it, processing it requires huge amounts of a witches brew of toxic chemicals - the bleach contains potassium ferricyanide, potassium bromide,ammonium thiocyanate and various acids.  The developer contains formaldehyde; the fixer ammonium and sulfur compounds.  All of these chemicals are further contaminated with heavy amounts of silver waste washed away from the film during processing.  And loads of clean water have to be consumed at each rinse step.  An 120 minute 35mm film requires at least 36,000 feet of camera negative processed (at a conservative 3:1 shooting ratio).  Back when movies were released on celluloid to theaters it took a staggering 24 million feet of release prints processed (12,000 feet per print times 2,000 theaters) for just one movie!
For digital, you need toxic chemicals to make the storage mediums, but in far smaller amounts; making a tiny memory card consumes just a drop in the bucket compared with the amounts needed to process just two hours of celluloid (12,000 feet of 35mm).  And digital storage mediums can be reused hundreds or even thousands of times, compared with the one-time use of celluloid.
 

The more I think about it the more I think celluloid motion picture film really is an environmental disaster.  Leaving aside the chemicals required to make it, processing it requires huge amounts of a witches brew of toxic chemicals - the bleach contains potassium ferricyanide, potassium bromide,ammonium thiocyanate and various acids.  The developer contains formaldehyde; the fixer ammonium and sulfur compounds.  All of these chemicals are further contaminated with heavy amounts of silver waste washed away from the film during processing.  And loads of clean water have to be consumed at each rinse step.  An 120 minute 35mm film requires at least 36,000 feet of camera negative processed (at a conservative 3:1 shooting ratio).  Back when movies were released on celluloid to theaters it took a staggering 24 million feet of release prints processed (12,000 feet per print times 2,000 theaters) for just one movie!
For digital, you need toxic chemicals to make the storage mediums, but in far smaller amounts; making a tiny memory card consumes just a drop in the bucket compared with the amounts needed to process just two hours of celluloid (12,000 feet of 35mm).  And digital storage mediums can be reused hundreds or even thousands of times, compared with the one-time use of celluloid.
 

The only thing oversimplified here was your response.
 
I took the time to read the financial reports for Canon and Panasonic. As someone else previously mentioned, Canon is making a profit currently and Panasonic is losing money.  It's starting to get clearer what Canon's strategy is here.  With the market for mass market cameras shrinking due to competition from cell phones, etc., they have evidently decided to preserve profits by cutting product development costs except for their high margin lines. So their APS-C cameras have shared the same sensor design for the last five years.  4K capability was added only to their two most expensive cameras.  The only real innovation added to any Canon model under $10,000 in the last few years that I can think of has been "dual-pixel" focusing on a few models.  Panasonic and Sony are doing the opposite - taking some losses to make cameras so advanced that they hope cell phones can't compete with them.
 
For the advanced videographer who doesn't have $15,000 or more to spend on a camera, currently the best choice of what to buy, I'm sorry to say, is probably a camera that doesn't say "Canon" on it.

You have a good take on what probably occurred.  Unfortunately this is a symptom of business practices that have been happening in the video camera market for a long time.  In the olden days you had television stations making tons of money, and therefore willing to pay sky-high prices for equipment.  At one time the prices may have been justified, but when the home video market took off, manufacturers of video gear had a problem - how to offer VCRs and camcorders at prices affordable to the consumer, while not risking the fat margins they were making on the professional stuff?  The solution of course was to deliberately cripple the consumer gear, by both cutting the resolution and color depth that could be recorded and played back.  Effectively both consumers and pros got screwed by this, while the manufacturers laughed their way to the bank.  Amateur and low-budget filmmakers got screwed worst of all - forced to make their creations on crippled formats (like DV), just so the manufacturers could protect their high profit margins on the pro gear.
 
Then Canon added video recording to the 5D, and low/no budget filmmakers rejoiced because it seemed like we were on the verge of finally being able to make movies as good looking as the pros were able to do with their $50,000 cameras.  Canon however saw it as an opportunity, as you said, to make something for the high margin crowd.  How high margin?  Well, the C300 came out with an 8 megapixel APS-C sensor that was likely just a mild re-spin of the original 8 megapixel APS-C sensor from the old Rebel XT.  They threw in a faster CPU that could handle the frame rate and some professional audio connectors, and presto they had something they could sell for $15,000.  With a parts list that probably doesn't exceed $500 in total cost.  This probably explains why Canon is making a profit while some other makers are currently losing money.

> almost like Canon OWE them something.
 
They do, the relationship between company and consumer is not a one-way street. You buy a product with the expectation that it will live up to its advertising and be fit for the purpose it was intended.  If Canon wasn't claiming that their DSLRs are designed for videographers and are excellent for that task (read their ads for the 7D Mk II) then there would be no problem, but they are so there is.
 
> Compared to 10 years ago we are living in a dream land...
 
If we are, it is only because consumers have learned to start pushing back on some of the less-than-nice business practices of the major camera makers.  I think we have the Internet to thank for that - it's provided a place for people to gather and discuss these issues and work on unofficial unauthorized hacks like Magic Lantern to get more out of the hardware than manufacturers like Canon are willing to provide. In the interview Andrew did, note Canon's hostile reaction to the mention of Magic Lantern. They are taking active steps to stop ML, for example by requiring that the higher-priced cameras be sent in to get firmware updates.
 
Remember, the first push for "affordable" ($20K) digital cinema cameras came from a little company called Red, not from the major players like Sony who were charging close to $100K for CineAltas that were less capable at the time.
 
So yes, go out and "shoot", but also keep in mind what it took to get to where we are, and that Canon's policies are unlikely to change if we don't continue to speak out regarding these issues.

> I honestly don't understand why people are so upset over what Canon are doing or not doing
 
I think people are upset because they bought the 5D Mk II and invested in Canon lenses thinking that Canon would continue and improve upon what they started, in the same relatively affordable price range.  Instead, Canon put the next version of the 5D on ice for almost four years and told Canon DSLR videographers that if they wanted any improvements, they would need to take out a second mortgage on their house and get into the high-priced Cinema Series.  To rub salt in the wound they withheld basic video features on their DSLRs that they were happy to give to the cheap small-sensor camcorder crowd.

When you can get a head-phone jack on a $249 Canon camcorder but not on the $2,000 6D (like the 7D also advertised by Canon as being designed for videographers), there is no way that can be explained away.
 
Yes, you can sell all your Canon gear and buy something with more up-to-date video features at a more reasonable price from a different manufacturer.  But for true Canon fans, it's a sad occasion when they have to do that, reflecting on what could of been if only Canon had stuck by the folks who helped them start the whole DSLR video revolution in the first place.

> almost like Canon OWE them something.
 
They do, the relationship between company and consumer is not a one-way street. You buy a product with the expectation that it will live up to its advertising and be fit for the purpose it was intended.  If Canon wasn't claiming that their DSLRs are designed for videographers and are excellent for that task (read their ads for the 7D Mk II) then there would be no problem, but they are so there is.
 
> Compared to 10 years ago we are living in a dream land...
 
If we are, it is only because consumers have learned to start pushing back on some of the less-than-nice business practices of the major camera makers.  I think we have the Internet to thank for that - it's provided a place for people to gather and discuss these issues and work on unofficial unauthorized hacks like Magic Lantern to get more out of the hardware than manufacturers like Canon are willing to provide. In the interview Andrew did, note Canon's hostile reaction to the mention of Magic Lantern. They are taking active steps to stop ML, for example by requiring that the higher-priced cameras be sent in to get firmware updates.
 
Remember, the first push for "affordable" ($20K) digital cinema cameras came from a little company called Red, not from the major players like Sony who were charging close to $100K for CineAltas that were less capable at the time.
 
So yes, go out and "shoot", but also keep in mind what it took to get to where we are, and that Canon's policies are unlikely to change if we don't continue to speak out regarding these issues.

Just to illustrate (even more) how artificial Canon's restrictions on video features on Canon DSLRs are, take a look at the little Canon Vixia HF R400 camcorder.  It retails for $249 (I got one on sale for $199).  It can record 1080p at 60 frames per second and has a headphone jack for monitoring audio, features not present on any Rebel or the $2,000 6D, although these finally did show up on the new $1,800 7D Mk 2.  This cheap little camcorder can also do clean HDMI out (!), another feature not present on any Canon DSLR that costs less than $1,800.  It also does not suffer from moire and other line-skipping issues. However, before you all throw away your Arri Alexas and get one of these $249 camcorders, I do need to mention it has a tiny sensor so in low light the grain looks like a snow blizzard.  What amazes me though is that Canon is willing to give their cheap tiny sensor cameras features that they withhold from DSLRs costing six times as much.
 
If you are willing to spend another $100, for $349 you can get a Vixia with built-in WiFi, the same feature that costs $850 to add to the $1,800 7D Mk 2.