I know I've said this before, but I really dislike - resent, even - the idea that a significant part of the cost of the 5D3 that I'll buy will have gone into developing video functionality that I will never, EVER, use.
Just sell me a 5D3 without any video functionality, commensurately cheaper, please!
Or, spend the same money enhancing the stills functionality.
If I wanted a camcorder, guess what: I'd go out to a camcorder shop, and buy one.
Sorry to repeat the same old rant.
This just shows a sever lack of understanding about why the 5D became popular for video. The video you can capture is MILES ahead of any "camcorder" in terms of aesthetics. The 5D is one of only TWO digital camera systems in the world that records FF35 video.
As far as to why people would want that for video over a regular camcorder at the camcorder store... well because it DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A CAMCORDER. If you think that going from FF35 to APS-C is bad... try FF35 compared to 1/3" video camera chip... then come back and talk about video on the 5DIII being nonsense. It opened up a completely new look for cinematographers and directors that was, no more than 5 years ago, only available on $250,000 camera systems.