No, by giving them two crappy codecs which are both short of broadcast standard. There was no reason not to give them the 50mb/s 4:2:2 xf codec. It's what everyone wanted, not a 90 mb/s intraframe codec... And the 5d is not a consumer product.
Well there was some reason:
G1 (D4 based) Canon video DSLRs cannot handle that bandwith reliably.
How long would you get on G1 D4 cameras with 4GB cap per clip?
Cards would need to be huge and expensive.
Whilst I would not use any DSLR, or mpeg based, or single chip camera for heavy duty compositing, I have seen plenty of stuff broadcast that was shot on DSLRs. Including a couple of my own TV adverts. (7D)
50MB/s and 90MB/s is breaking XDCAMHD and approaching original HDCAM territory. How much are XDCAM cameras costing?
Temporal codecs sucks as origination format, but then I recall MPEG2 being fine for broadcast when folks were shooting with z1's etc. Spatial codecs better for editing. Uncompressed is really what you want for decent grading. I suppose some folk would be annoyed that the 5D3 stills camera with video lumped doesn't record RAW.
You had better tell Darren Aronovsky to reshoot black swan, as if the codecs aren't broadcast quality then they certainly can't be cinematic quality. Can they?
I DO see your point, but it's an unrealistic expectation for the cost. Canon not giving YOU everything YOU want isn't them crippling a camera.