I use my DSLRs for video - ML does what the Philip Bloom wannabes want, it's not a stock canon feature.
Zebras etc can be added on external monitors also.
I've not asked for either. Ok. a headphone socket would be really really really nice, but my beachtek (at extra cost to me, not developed by canon or detracting from canons work) largely solves the problem.
Video is 99% live view.
It's really not worth going on so much about.
No, Video is NOT 99% live view. Video on a DLSR means a sensor which is compromised because it is "optimized" to being ON for 30 minutes at a time and longer. Not needed for liveview or stills. Video is about all sorts of awkward hardware and firmware manipulations on a DSLR that are not needed for stills capture or even in the way. Video means, R&D funds are misappropriated for something only a tiny minority ever uses in a DSLR, rather than being directed at the issues, Canon should be solving and which would be beneficial to the overwhelming majority of stills photographers: fully competitive sensors! Vastly improved DR at low ISO! Far less banding/noise, better S/N at high ISO!
Personally, I really don't understand why you and other avid videographers are not buying a true videocam. If I was into video, I would definitely NEVER EVER put up with ANY DSLR to capture video. Not even a 1Dc. I'd rather buy a C500 or something along those lines then. And I would beat on Canon to sell those video gagdets at more reasonable prices. Since obviously lower price is the sole reason why people would ever consider buying large sensored DSLRs and (ab)use them to capture video.
If Nikon brings their new DF DSLR without video, that will be the only feature about it, that I will commend them for. Otherwise I don't care for that camera not at all. I hate retro looks on modern gear, whether it be cameras or cars.
Given that video was first introduced as a gimmick enabled by live view (on the D90 and the Mark II), I'm pretty sure it is
99% live view. The only camera that's been in any way "compromised" by it is the Mark III, to the extent that the resolution was designed to downscale conveniently to 1080p. That's about it. That and the 1DC. (Not the 1DX.) In fact Canon has pretty terrible video relative to some of the competition! They certainly haven't compromised stills performance for video, despite the fact that Mark II and 7D sales were driven STRONGLY by their video features.
Sony's advantages in sensor tech are not related to a lack of video. The D800 has video. The Alexa IS a video camera. They all benefit from superior dynamic range because Sony has better sensor fabs and has patents on on-chip ADCs that Canon refuses to license.
But yes, I would rather have a C500 than a 7D! I would not, however, rather BUY a C500. It's $30,000. If anything including video helps dSLRs be more competitive and drive a larger base to buy them, making them cheaper for still photographers.