There's a whole Cine line of cameras from Canon, why can't film makers just buy those and leave our photographic cameras alone.
I don't understand this obsession with making everything into a video camera.
Would you be upset if your phone could not do both? If you understand the basic technology of the various features, stills and video use the same electronics for image capture, stabilization, focus, etc. so why NOT put both in? Despite the perception, we are are not paying that much (if any) extra for video at all, and besides, the market wants both. Example: I want both in one body because stabilized lenses and body will be vastly superior for both stills and video jobs than a slower and lower spec. stills camera and separate professional camcorder with weak stabilization, or truly video centric DSLR like GH5 with a tiny sensor and weak autofocus. Not to mention I don't have 10-15K for a cinema camera and its accessories anyway.
The R5 offers incredible stills AND incredible video because it can, and costs only $400 more than the 5D4 and 5D3 which were both mostly stills cameras that were barely competent in video mode. While bringing so much more than the predecessors offered, as well as being mirrorless and having a new and better lens mount, the R5 is a better value for stills alone even if you never touched video. DPAF2 and the 1DXiii focus system plus fast stills shooting are all incredible additions for any stills photographer. For stills, the 5 series has clearly gone up market a bit due to competition, but everyone wants and is putting video and stills in one body. If you wanted just the great 5D4 sensor in a mirrorless body, well you already have it in the EOS R, and the 5D4 is still a great camera itself.
As to the technology for video vs stills, it is much the same: A high resolution sensor that can shoot 20 frames a second is only 10 frames shy of 30 fps at max sensor resolution- in this case an 8K sized sensor. Adding 10 more frames a second is a matter of a bit faster readout speed of the sensor- and the Digic X and the ADC readout hardware already needs to be a beast to do all the stills processing like HDR, DPAF, fast bursts, noise, lens corrections, etc. So it really is just two applications of the same electronic hardware- if you think stills and video are that different, you are perhaps misunderstanding how modern digital cameras work. The only "extra" is how many times the sensor can be read per second, and at the highest rate, heat. As for the other video modes below 8K, down sampling and lower video resolutions with higher frame rates use the same data bandwidth as 8K30 with different binning of pixels to share the max readout bandwidth. Maybe some engineering was spent on cooling and firmware for video, but again, referring back to the previous cameras, the R5 is borrowing from the rest of the Canon lineup and hardly making us pay that much for the "extra" of video and will be a great stills camera with features we could only dream of two years ago. Also, no one is holding you hostage to buy the R5, there are plenty of great still cameras with less video from Canon and other brands at all price points.
So please, reconsider your complaint against video in this and other cameras as if it is hurting you unless you have a logical argument. It is actually making your stills camera more capable to have hardware with this much power. If you don't want video don't use it. Or you could wait for another R that is sure to come with a different balance of features or get the R6 if you don't need high resolution. Canon is simply making a camera with wide appeal that does many things well, but it is not compromising on stills by doing so, nor did they add a big pricetag for the video features- I don't see how that argument can be made when you look at the predecessors. I suppose looking at Canon price premium in general is another argument, but according to the competition I think they are being competitive on price.