At a photography and video convention I attended several years ago, a high-end lighting company had a pocket spectroscope as part of their display.

Spectators like myself were invited to look at their LED system through the spectroscope, then compare it to the fluorescent tubes and metal halide lights overhead.

Their LEDs were beautiful and flat, while the house lights were very spiky, with noticeable gaps and spikes.

While playing around with the scope, I remembered that I had a cheap, dollar store LED flashlight in my pocket. So I examined the light output from the flashlight and compared it to the 5 figure price tag system the company was showing off.

The spectrum from the $1 flashlight was the same.

Moral of the story: LEDs give off nice light.

non-constant aperture
No viewfinder.
slo-mo limited to 720p
multiple card formats will limitations and lack of compatibility across different modes.
Too low of an ISO for such a slow lens is bound to make indoor/low light shooting suck
Shutter speed that won't switch back after frame rate change

That sounds like a whole lot of deal breakers to me.

If Canon can't compete on dynamic range or low light, it should at least compete on features. Beautiful out-of-camera skin tones alone isn't enough to cut it any more.

I think you have exactly the right attitude.

You know what's worse than having bad sound in your movie?

Not having any movie at all because you were too worried about gear to get out there and shoot!

Best of luck to you.

I'm in a similar situation, and I'm leaning towards abandoning wireless all together and just going with lavs plugged into field recorders that the actors will carry around in their back pockets.

A lot of people seem to dislike Michael Bay and his movies (I count myself among that crowd) but I've always found that it is more useful to study what you *don't* like than to study what you do.

When something works, it often feels like magic; when something fails, it is usually strikingly obvious exactly what is wrong with it.

Michael Bay does wild, dynamic, impossible-to-follow high-octane action better than anyone.
Rather than sitting back and bashing him from afar, we should be looking for what doesn't work - like cramming as much drama, action, and movement into every goddam scene whether it is called for or not, and grading to make people look like pumpkins.

His techniques could be used very effectively by a tasteful director who knows when to crank it way back (which is most of the time...).

4K isn't just about delivering a higher resolution end result to the client; it also allows for much greater flexibility in the editing room for delivering 1080p finals.

Shoot everything a little wider, now you can:
Punch in during post to hide jump cuts
Stabilize footage more

Other perks:
Get better results with chroma keying
Clean up noise more aggressively
Downscale to 1080p, and still have a sharper image than shooting at 1080p natively gives you.

It's not so effect now, but years ago, I had good luck using a cellphone camera as a crude light meter for a greenscreen. When your sensor only gives you 3 or 4 stops of range, subtle lighting irregularities really stand out.
I'd scan the scene with my phone camera, looking for hot spots or shadows my eyes missed.
Now that smartphones have his the scene and cameras have gotten a lot better, this technique isn't nearly as effective.