Yes, but I think that we can't talk about a camera, specially a camera that is supposed to be strong in motion, with just manufacturer specs.
Things have to be putten into the context of the all workflow pipeline.
We're all talking about clean, no brainer, simple etc...because that's what we all want.
But I think that Cooter also expresses something cyclic: You've been shooting during mounths with those Red, and you're looking at the 14 cases for the X' time...and you look at the Canon
and it's just so attractive. Cooter might buy the Canon, and after X time dealing with it, you look at your Red and it just looks so attractive, right or not?
Yes, there is no one ideal tool but the ideal is to have different tools.
About usability etc...
- Codec party. When I work with R3D files, I can cut with the proxies, although that's only when you don't have clients next to you because those proxies aren't looking good, then the only thing you have to do is re-linking at some point to the Raws for grading, for ex in Da-Vinci and output a master in 444 and a copy in 422. That's what I'd call simple, clean etc...
Now take one of those highly compressed codecs that feature generally dslrs. You'd have to transcode. You can not re-link to AVCHD 8 bits for grading because the all thing is falling appart.
Time consuming, more manipulation, more complicated. Of course it's done, but that's not what I'd call simplier. Also, outputing a high bitrate 10 bits copy for grading from a highly compressed 8 bit codec is a bigger file than a R3D and you don't gain any information but just empeach more degradation. You're in fact working in "false" 10 bits. There are no such things and as MR pointed in a recent article, the use of external recorders on those cameras is a choice to meditate because there is very little gain in quality but only in the workflow.
- Have you ever tried to work with long heavy cine lenses on those dslrs and pull focus in action? Here the all thing is falling appart. It's just not stable enough. The solutions to overcome that are very costly. Try for example to film surfers that aren't on the closest waves, from the beach with a 500mm equivalent on a tripod and follow the action with a dslr...fun guarantee. Actually talking about that, this summer I went to the Landes coast, a french world championship spot for surfing and there were filmakers. None were working with dslrs and their equipment was really heavy.
examples like those abund. So the only thing is to know the range of action of those still cameras, what can be reasonably done with them. Of course the higher isos exploitable, the better. That's the strengh. But then, 8 bits... means that it depends very much what kind of subject you'd have in front of you. At the minimum plane color scale, snow, lake, uniform wall and depending on the light inclination, isos, you'll posterize at one point or another. It's not fun and avoiding it on set is difficult and not always possible. So yeah, being able to shoot at very high isos and in fact that your footage looks almost daylight and then in post you make it looks night again, would be for me the best solution with those dslrs if what you want is not a festival of dirt and banding artefacts. I applaude if this Canon can really jump to very high isos the clean way.
What I mean to resume is that those Canons are good and a lot can be done indeed, but the moment you go out of their confort zone, the all thing is falling apart easily and time, money and brain consuming hassles are there, but they are just different than with heavier equipment. So it depends very much on your needs, budget and personal approach. The best thing is to adapt the pipeline to those dslrs but not the other way because it won't work so well.
In the end, the work is done with whatever. I think it's just important to be aware of what to expect and the pro-cons of each tool.