"Videographers" should realize that stills should always get priority with the dslr . . . So, they have to get in line behind what photographers "wanted the 5D Mark III to be."
It was just a description dude, people are allowed to want whatever the hell they want. I'm a videographer and I screamed at people for months up to the 5DIII release that it would only have slightly improved video and that they needed to keep the two separate. He's just saying that if you're a videographer that wanted a 5DIII this is probably the camera for you.
yeah, and I'm also "just sayin" haha . . . speakiing of those that are more dissapointed with the video aspects of this (mkIII) dslr. . . . and I happen to be right, no!?
Otherwise there are a lot of cameras out there for pro videographers, and if you are not a pro, but just want somewthing that can give you that op to ejoy making professioanl quality videos, once you purchase rigs and matt boxes etc, with the mkIII, then excellent too!!!
The main point is that Still pohotographers that care nothing for video (unlike myself), are forced to pay MORE for a stills camera simply because they add all these video features . . and that is something to think about too. For wedding photographers looking to get extra business, and amateur videogrpahers, etc, it is a bonus.
Imagine if all of the $3500 of the mkIII was for simply stills capable camera, and absolutely NO video!?!?!? They should've done one for stills ONLY and one for stills and video, and one for video . . . from the start. . . or howver the hell they want to go about it. . . . but we all know how marketing sucks in all the fish in the sea, especially the ISO wars, as an example.