It's basically a 24-70mm – the most common full-frame mid-range zoom lens across all brands. Sure, those 4mm on the wide end will be missed, but calling it a useless focal range is... a niche opinion.
Hmm, this just looks like the Devin Graham Glidecam rebranded (or de-branded, I guess). Not that it's a bad thing, fantastic product.
In a strange way, this sounds like the opposite of films like Victoria or Russian Ark, where you have EXTREME levels of planning and rehearsing and blocking to ensure there is always something worthwhile in frame and never a dull moment. This actually sounds much more like a cost-cutting decision, to just finish all the shooting in real time, one night. Which, if it's a sort of ambling, rambling, conversation of a movie, might serve the story.
"By choosing a flexible, future-proof" do-everything-on-any-mount" lens, you may be getting better lens performance than by going for a dedicated tool that only has one job and does it well."
Is that supposed to read "...you may be getting _worse_ lens performance..." ?
What is with the field of view angles in this article? OK, a 9mm lens on APS-C is indeed around 110°, but then the 12mm lens is touted as being 122°– so that is a full frame lens then? And then you have a 25mm lens that has a field of view of 10.3°(Circa the same as a 200-300mm lens?)?
You should read the article. They are touting it as a director's monitor, i.e. a monitor that lives with and belongs to the director – not for video village.