unfocused said:
More to the point, it ignores the crux of the argument, which revolves around the relative cost of having video features in or out of a still camera. The discussion was never about the convenience of a form factor, but rather about the fact that the essential technology used in a still camera today and the essential technology used in a dedicated video camera are one and same -- digital recording of images.
Still cameras no longer use film. Video cameras no longer use tape. They use the same digital technology.
IMHO, there are some common technologies shared between still and video cams, such as AF, focus tracking, histogram, and perhaps focus peaking and zebras. But there are some essential features for video cameras (such as: codecs, luma waveform, multiple audio channels, triggers, false color, vector scope, timecode, etc.) that are not necessarily needed in still only cameras. Some of these features (such as codecs and multi-channel audio) are very CPU, memory, bandwidth, power demanding and costly.
Some companies, including Cannon, may offer a subset of consumer-oriented implementation of these features in a DSLR/mirrorless form factor. But today, there is no hybrid camera that has full and professional implementation of all these features, and I guess it will never happen. That is why Canon has two separate Cine and EOS product lines.