Common sense tells me something is wrong with this review. He is as critical about the 5D III as he is about the 5D II for its resolution- not true 1080p according to the review. However, the Mark II was used extensively, and still is, for commercial cinematic productions. Either he is wrong, or some of the big names in hollywood are content with shooting at "720p" with the Mark II.
These days it is standard tactics. Write a bunch of stuff and get the traffic to your site. You go to any forum and there are a bunch of fans of GH2 who wants to run down any camera. When the Canon C300 was launched the same guys started comparing with GH2. And they will do it with any camera that is launched in the future. The Canon C300 was panned heavily due to its specs and when people got their hands on it, they realised how great a camera it is.
A lot of people are also comparing the 5DIII with the 5DII and immediately dialling the same settings as they had in their 5DII (for shooting video). The 5D III is different. There is no false aliasing like GH2 etc. It needs a different amount of sharpening and sharpens beautifully, as the files are devoid of artifacts which when present gives a false sense of sharpness in GH2.
I am waiting to review the 1DX when Canon decides.