Upload & Sell: Off
The information on pixels etc as been available for months. The aspect ratio is pretty irrelevant because you'll likely crop this in post anyway, ether to HD 1080p for 16x9 (domestic TV) or using 4K to 2:35 (commercial movies). Personally we never use 1.85 and don't know any one who does.
The camera is primarily intended as a 4K video camera. It records the VIDEO in motion jpeg files, which are essentially stills, one for each frame of the video. Yes Canon are saying this and always have. Go look for Philip Bloom's review of it as a video camera.
What I don't understand is why people are saying it's not as good as cameras that shoot raw at a lower frame rate. This camera is essentially a superset of the 1DX. It CAN shoot raw photos, just like the 1DX, but clearly not at 24fps.
It's not intended to replace cameras that shoot raw at a lower frame rate, it's intended to be a 4K video from which you can 'also' take stills (at 24fps). Those stills are higher resolution that you got from earlier DSLRs, including the 1D (4MP) and very close to the 1D2. If you want / need raw then shoot raw like a stills camera. If you want higher frames rates there is a trade off, that being they are lower resolution and not raw.
Whether the price makes sense to you or not depends on why you'd buy it. Find me another product that can shoot 4K video AND 18MP RAW files for the same price (not two separate cameras).
To me it makes perfect sense due to some of the situations I shoot in (both photo and video). Can I afford it today? No. If I could afford it would I buy it? Yes. Would I capture video or stills with it? Both. Sometimes the stills would be 1DX raw style and other times it would make sense to capture video and extract the stills.
There are times when I can't be in the right position to capture something simply because there is no room, or permission cannot be granted due to the noise of the shutter or the distraction of a person standing there. But in those same situations I can often position a small, silent video camera and the option of taking stills from that camera and turning them in to large prints would be very welcome.
There area LOT of people here totally opposed to video, and especially video within DSLRs, choosing to vilify manufacturers, the features and even the users for reason that are totally beyond me. Yet, they themselves yearn for higher and higher fps on their 'stills' cameras so they can spray and pray at a bird flying by, or a car racing round a track etc, and then go look for the one good frame later on.
Many of these same people shoot JPEG already (there's nothing wrong with JPEG if you have the skills to use your camera properly) in order to keep the frame rate up and the buffers flushing more quickly. They then go on to spend $10K, $20K, $30K or more on glass to go with their high fps JPEG machines, only to post their shots on the web and never even make prints. While the pixels per duck may be lower on a frame by frame basis with the 1DC, they'll certainly get a lot more frames to choose from Do I criticise them? No, they're happy doing what they do, and long may they continue. But let's not kid ourselves, spray and pray is just a slow form of video from which you capture the one (or more) still that makes you smile.
I'm not, never was and never will be a purist. I'll take the tools available and use them as best I can. Just because a new tool comes out doesn't mean my old tool stops working, but equally, if the new tool allows me to do something I couldn't do before (but really wanted to do) then I'm happy to embrace it.
All new tools / technology costs more money that many can afford when it's first released, but prices come down over time while features generally increase.
So, I go back to the OP and say "so what"? Is it worth $11,999 to shoot 7MP crop photos at 24fps? The answer is if that's what you want to do, yes it probably is. If it's not what you want to do then no it's not. How is that any different to the 1DX vs 5D3 or T4i etc?