Currently I am shooting almost all of my broadcast video production with the Canon, so much so that I now own two of them, fully rigged with mat boxes, follow focus, and miniaturized two channel audio mixers. The problem with pigeonholing modern tech is that it is a target that moves faster than someone can write when trying to categorize it. This has transpired in the last six months. I have access to RED and rarely use it anymore, because it is ponderous in comparison and not at all cost effective. When the Canon is used by a professional cinematographer and set up with a colorspace and contrast that is suited for professional grading by someone who knows what they are doing the footage is equal and most of the time superior to anything short of a RED, and gives even the RED a run for its money when you consider the cost difference. Most of the early issues have been sorted by the pros (artifacting, rolling shutter, etc.) so these days once the codec has been converted and graded the BBC wouldn't know what camera it came out of. Most of the poo pooing comes from vidiots who are put off by the idea that they have to think about things like focus, depth of field, and camera support. As a result he large sensor video aspect is a resounding success in the actual production world, and not so much in the guy with a camera newsie TV station world. Good lenses are a must, but past a certain point, irrelevant except for speed and color, because the resolution of HD is still lilliputian compared to film or a modern sensor.
Although the camera will capture stills doing so together with video is very difficult to pull off on practice, for a variety of reasons, in particular you have to switch your head back and forth. Jack of all and master of none as they say, so the idea of a separate little video camera shooting on a still job makes some sense, and I may try it. Trying to shoot stills during a video shoot on the other hand is something I'd personally pass on.