Why not? The GH2 combo probably costs around $1.5-2K. Would you not expect a $40+K solution aimed at the professional photographer to be at the very least just as capable?
Professionals can usually afford lights and those cameras are intended to be used in studio settings just like motion picture cameras. Sure having great low light performance opens up possibilities but at the same time you loose a lot of quality especially if you want to do post production to your image/video.
A professional workflow needs to give the ability to do a lot of post production on the image, and when you look at the output from a red or alexa compared to a gh2 (which i own) the quality difference is day and night. I'm sure once technology is available that combines all the benefits of CCD's and CMOS without the downsides of each, the likes of phase will incorporate it. Is their gear to expensive ? Sure, but getting an extra 20% out of a technology can cost a lot of money to and when demand is low it's tough to keep it cheap. The same thing can be observed with professional post production software (which i know better than cars as far as analogies go), professionals are the most demanding customers that cost a lot to keep satisfied and there is far less of them. Look at applications like NUKE or Houdini, they do what they do very well (and cost thousands) but are not nearly as polished from a UI standpoint as something adobe would make for the masses. In fact a product like After Effects does pretty much everything NUKE does and more, but the way nuke does it is worth a lot more to the people that know what they need in production and they are willing to pay for it.
