No, by giving them two crappy codecs which are both short of broadcast standard. There was no reason not to give them the 50mb/s 4:2:2 xf codec. It's what everyone wanted, not a 90 mb/s intraframe codec... And the 5d is not a consumer product.
Well there was some reason:
G1 (D4 based) Canon video DSLRs cannot handle that bandwith reliably.
How long would you get on G1 D4 cameras with 4GB cap per clip?
Cards would need to be huge and expensive.
Whilst I would not use any DSLR, or mpeg based, or single chip camera for heavy duty compositing, I have seen plenty of stuff broadcast that was shot on DSLRs. Including a couple of my own TV adverts. (7D)
50MB/s and 90MB/s is breaking XDCAMHD and approaching original HDCAM territory. How much are XDCAM cameras costing?
Temporal codecs sucks as origination format, but then I recall MPEG2 being fine for broadcast when folks were shooting with z1's etc. Spatial codecs better for editing. Uncompressed is really what you want for decent grading. I suppose some folk would be annoyed that the 5D3 stills camera with video lumped doesn't record RAW.
You had better tell Darren Aronovsky to reshoot black swan, as if the codecs aren't broadcast quality then they certainly can't be cinematic quality. Can they?
I DO see your point, but it's an unrealistic expectation for the cost. Canon not giving YOU everything YOU want isn't them crippling a camera.
Actually no. Canon had been hyping the 5Dm3 saying that there would be a new codec - which many people expected to be the 50mb/s 4:2:2 codec they used in the xf line. D4 cameras perhaps can't handle that, but if D5+ can do 90mb/s intraframe I'd be very surprised if they cant do 50mb/s 4:2:2 - hell the 1dc is going to do mjpeg at 4k 500mb/s with d5+ (albeit with 2 of em and extra cooling systems) so claiming that 50mb/s isn't possible just aint true.
Similarly your file size thing just makes no sense - how is a 50mb/s file any bigger (and therefore more problematic with regards to storage) than the 90mb/s intraframe codec which they implemented on the 5dm3? If you're concerned about how long you get on a card then surely you'd rather have a smaller file? How long would you get on a 32gb CF card at 50 mb/s - about an hour. Given that they cost just over £50 and with several you'd be fine for most things (and its not like you want DSLRs for reality anyway). Compared to the cost of, say Panasonic P2 cards (which are damn cheap now compared to what they were in the past) at around £375 for 32gb that seems pretty reasonable? no?
The difference between shooting for broadcast, and the heavy imaging work that goes into cinematic images is apples to oranges, and I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand this. They used the 5Dm2 on House - so you can broadcast it - but only after a long, complex and expensive process in post. This is worlds away from what you have to do with footage out of C300 or even an EX3 before it can be broadcast - and the cost of doing this effectively prevents production companies using a 5Dm3 as a cheap camera for broadcasting material.
Canon using codecs which prevent particular uses of a camera (without extended post-processing) to protect other aspects of their product line is effectively crippling a camera. Not including simple features which the cameras are capable of such as zebra bars is similarly meant to distinguish their DSLRs from their video line. The 5Dm3 is great for many things, but pretending that Canon haven't deliberately taken particular decisions to prevent particular usages (or to make them far more effort than is necessary) just isn't true.
However, unless you're main line of work is broadcast this doesn't affect you. Increasingly people are making content for the web - and for that the 5Dm3 is more than enough of a camera to make stunning work.