I don't ever get the angst over video advancements from still photographers. What do people think a DSLR is anyway? It is nothing but a video camera optimized for stills.
It's kind of like those who complain that they don't want to "pay" for video because they never use it. It's been explained over and over again – video capability makes DSLRs cheaper not more expensive. Unless you are using film, video enhancements inevitably makes stills photography better.
Wow. This might go head-to-head (if not surpass) Nikon's current lineup of legendary low-light performance sensors.
Nikon has a "lineup of legendary low-light performance sensors?" I must have missed those. Seriously, EVERY review I've read and every comparison I've looked at makes it clear that Canon's lineup of sensors
outperforms Nikon's in high ISO performance. Nikon has been emphasizing megapixels, while Canon has focused on high ISO performance. A few years ago it was the other way around, but since the introduction of the 1D-X Canon has captured the high ISO field.
Take a close look at comparison shots on any of the reputable test sites and it's clear that at higher ISOs Canon outperforms Nikon and Nikon/Sony sensors.