The d100 just felt better in the hand though. I think it had better AF too. Anyway, I've enough conflict on my hands defending video... let's not go there.
Video for pro-togs. Yes, ok ... wedding, events, news ... BUT: one would think, the video capabilities in 1D X and 5D 3 should be plenty.
What really puzzles me is the 1D C! Hi-end "4k cine cam" ... in the form factor of a DSLR and burdened down with all the video-unfriendly stills-imaging stuff (Mirrorbox, mirror, prism, OVF). WHY not as top-level C6900, or C700 or whatever number ... but in a camcorder form factor and in the C-line? Of course with optional EF-mount - I see no problem with that one. I cannot imagine users of 1D C to capture many stills shots .. other than possibly some "making-of" pics behind on the set ... just for kicks. But for that a rebel or P&S would do as well.
To me Canon looks hell-bent to just produce the broadest and most confusing smattering of HD/2k/4k Video- DSLRs and C-### videocams in parallel. There is a tremendous amount of redundancy going on in those product lines.
I don't believe even Chuck Westfall himself could clearly state, who should use a 1D C, a 1D X, a 5D 3, a C500 or a C300. It is just a plethora of video cams, with stills not much more than an afterthought.