I don't fully understand the new 'Cine' equipment myself. It's moving towards video on EF mount, so that on it's own, is good thing, and helpful to EF mount users with video needs weather they use the high end Cine stuff or not. However, the whole move seems odd, definitely catered for a completely different crowd than the current DSLR video crowd and I'll explain why.
If I'm going to rent (and the dying breed Hollywood also rents a lot, and it is my position that they are dying), well then either I'm going to rent lenses, a body or both lenses with a body. So where does this new stuff fit in?
If I'm going to rent BOTH a cine body and cine lens, then I might as well consider every option in any mount.
If I'm going to rent just a cine lens, then that is a large cost just to stick it on a 5D Mark II (or whatever replaces it). And what does it really offer me? Mostly it offers subtle and in shot aperture control. But, why isn't canon instead, making subtle and in shot aperture control available digitally, simply by attaching a secondary controller to the camera body. And if this new additional controller wouldn't be usable by currently manufactured lenses, then instead just a feature of new lenses, when used with a digital wheel adapter.
If I'm just going to rent of a cine body, but use standard EF lenses, well now this option starts to make greater sense. Do I want the high end features in my upcoming/upgraded bodies, yes, but some may technically not be feasible in a 5D body size, and not just marketing decisions, and with all the added equipment needed, a rental of a Cine body, could make good sense.
Also we have to keep in mind, that the times TV/Hollywood did use DSLR's in production, price and being able to take risks with the cheaper equipment, etc., all were likely considerations for using that tech and not something else altogether. Again, baffling me as to what they are planning with all of these super expensive, non-DSLR focused releases.
Overall I'm a bit confused until I realize these new products really are not geared at all at DSLR film makers and are a completely different beast. Aka, take a new cine lens, and put it on either a Cine mount or a Red cam that features an EF mount and so on. But even then I'm still a bit confused and will have to see how it all plays out, sincerely hoping that if there are affordable/reasonable things that can be done on the DSLR video that I invested in, that they will be done, and not artificially with-held for marketing purposes. I hate to see profit and marketing hinder the efficacy or growth of technology and ubiquitous convergence technologies, I think we all accept it to some degree, but it is a shame, especially when so much of this stuff eventually ends up in a junk pile/environmental disaster some years down the road.
Side note, I'm not real concerned about 4k video, but am I the only one would would like some extra safe-frame resolution on top of 1080p so that I can attempt to re-crop and salvage a tripod bump stutter in post with tracking techniques and so on and so forth. For me 4k really fit the bill for this, as it also allows panning and zooming of a shot, or just total re-framing after the fact. If you don't understand what I am getting at, then shoot a project that will output at 720p but shoot it at 1080p instead, for the times you have no need for 60fps, and all of a sudden you have a lot of extra room for editing before you export it out to 720. I want this ability, but for the industry standard, not going anywhere fast, 1080p specification. And it does not seem unreasonable to ask for this in a 5D MKIII or 1DX. Also not excited about a video dedicated (aka. missing photography features) DSLR, but can understand a Photo only DSLR, if and when there is specific reason why DSLR video components would bump up the price for a Photo only user. Also, all the new buyers of the lenses, should help keep costs down for all, so I don't see why anyone should be upset, as I've read in a few goofy posts.