I understand your points and what you say is true... but that doesn't mean these cameras do not and will not have their place. They may not have their place for you and that is understandable.
I think some overlook that the combination of stills and motion has more uses than a print or narrative cinema.
Obviously this combination will not be for everyone, it may be for a very few, it may be for more down the road, who knows... But because it's a still, certainly doesn't mean it has to be printed at 16x20", just because it's motion doesn't mean it has to be cinema quality.
If your goal is high quality gallery prints, use the right tool. If your goal is a blockbuster, use the right tool. However, I see a whole 'nother use (uses) for these "hybrid" cameras, that goes beyond gallery prints and blockbusters. While retaining good quality (probably better quality than what was accepted as high quality from a DSLR, less than a decade ago).
Just my opinion.
If you walk south down broadway, from Union Sqaure to City Hall you will see more ink on paper advertising than anyplace in the planet. Bus Shelters, Cabs, Store Fronts, outdoor, handouts, newstands, newspaper machines and so many flyers that is looks like a ticker tape parade.
Then if you just squint a little you can easily see how the majority of this can be replaced by some kind of thin film digital screen, lcd or hand held device.
Look, I'm not saying still photography is dead, at least I hope it's not because it's how I make 95% of my income, but it just stands to reason that when the first Gap, Lucky Jeans or Walmart buys into electronic point of sale vs. standard ink on paper then the dominos are going to fall and once the requirement is a digital still, it stands to reason why not multiple digital stills, heck why not just multiple images period?
Today over lunch I noticed 5 people at the counter reading. Three were interacting with a pda or Iphone. The other two was a mother reading a childrens book to her daughter.
For the next two weeks we're in production for a lifestyle campaign where people are running, jumping and flying through the air. It's a still campaign, no moving digital imagery is requested, but don't think I wouldn't love a 5k Red that autofocused shot at 100fps, at 1000th of a second, if only for the stills.
I'm not a run and gun guy, though I do shoot a lot of data and I'm as comfortable shooting this with a Phase [a href=\"http://russellrutherford.com/sports/pictures/rr_sports_0066.jpg]http://russellrutherford.com/sports/pictur...sports_0066.jpg[/url] as I am shooting this http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictu...ashion_0073.jpg
with a Canon.
I am aware of how moving footage looks at high shutter speeds, but don't think some software engineer can take frenetic 1000th of a second 100 fps footage and smooth it down to look like standard 30 fps video, because if there is a call for it, the software will come.
I also know that the disciplines and technique from still to moving can be quite different depending on the intended use and medium.
That doesn't mean that all productions are that disimilar and it also doesn't mean those areas of cross over don't get closer every day.
I hate to say this but if we do get more "convergence", if we do begin reading the NY times on thin film recyclycable screens, if the windows of Victoria Secrets becomes a 12' lcd screen and the next Rocky 12 is shown on a digital projector it won't be art that drives the medium, it will be commerce.
It will be the cost of printing, paper, ink, distribution and delivery, vs the cost of downloading.
Now to also set the record straight, I've shot a lot of "parallel" productions and sometimes it's as easy as running a second camera over my shoulder and somtimes it's virtually impossible to do both well.
For still advertising, what I can do with a still camera and three profoto heads takes a 500 lb dolly, tracks, 200 amps and a crew of six to professionally produce a moving sequence. . . . sometimes.
When I started my career I was fortunate to be offered the position of a (then) large budget movie production shooting the stills for advertising. It was a wonderful 5 month gig in Montreal, Paris and London. One of my "requests" was to not shoot with a blimp and on most scenes to have the ability to redirect the talent into what would tell the proper story in a still vs. what was framed and shot for the screen.
The director was kind of enough to allow this and it had it's benifits, not in costs, but in the final product.
So I guess what I'm saying is I know the difference between the two disiplines and respect what it takes to make each work.
Regardless, if there is actually more convergence, especially in advertising the final deciding factor will be the return on investment.
If you have the abiltiy to shoot and direct both moving and still imagery and combine the process, you'll probably be more in demand.
It's really that simple.