Exactly. It appears that Canon is trying to sneak into good standing with budget filmmakers by associating itself with Panasonic and the GH4. However, it's exceedingly easy for Canon to compete with the GH4 - all they need to do is make the 1Dc $2,000...but they won't.
I'm a stills guy, but videographers keep telling me that there's far more to a video rig than if 4K is / isn't included. Surely Canon's stubbornness to not offer 4K at lower price points comes with other features/codecs/options that the GH4 doesn't have, right? (And, no: a high price is not a feature )
I recognize Canon's being foolish here, but is it a 'reasonable market segmentation' foolishness or a flat out Rome-is-burning / 'The Emperor is wearing no clothes' sort of foolishness? Is this like Mercedes deciding to never sell an affordable car but at least what they sell is really well built, or has Honda (Panasonic) simply made a comprehensively better car (GH4) for less money?
I appreciate how disruptive the GH4 is, but is it truly better than its higher price point competition?
The GH4 certainly has its limitations (mainly low-light), but the video hype is largely justified (and more than just about 4k). If one only compared video performance with the 1Dc, it would be a close call. The GH4 has all the features that are glaringly absent from non-Cinema line Canons: Peaking, Zebras, in-camera slo-mo, 1080p 60fps, 1080p 96fps, Synchro Scan, uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 out, XLR inputs with the YAGH interface unit...the list goes on and on. That's why the comparison is made to the 1dC and not the 5d Mark III, which is still more than twice its price. It's hard to justify paying $8,500 more than the GH4 for the 1Dc. However, I'm sure a full frame sensor, better low-light performance, and a native EF mount is worth it to some people. If I could have either camera for free, I would pick the 1Dc for those reasons. But right now it's just so overpriced to be competitive.