The same old issues are here with the camera does not take the shot as well as lighting and more are required to make a great shoot.
I've lost count of those entry movie makers that don't get a good audio rig or think they can get by with just one camera. My son took the film course work and now he gets it. He has audio rig(s) and the usual camera plus a second camera for the other angle.
All the work in post production makes you wonder how folk think it's just the camera we have to choose.
Bob
I am looking to buy a HDSLR as an entry into filmmaking, I wanted to not buy a lower spec camera first but actually go all out and purchase a model with a full-frame sensor.
I found the Nikon D600 first and looked at the quality of video that can be produced and learnt that this camera has so much potential. I then learnt that the D610 was released as there were a few minor faults with the D600 (dust/oil on sensor), they also made a couple minor things better but they are 99.9% the same camera, D610 being the faultless model.
I then was told by my friend who is biased toward Canon anyway, to check out the 6D. Both of these cameras have full frame sensors and are brilliant for film making. The Nikon would be better for action shooting (photos) but there really aren't major differences between the two. 6D has wifi and GPS where the Nikon has a pop-up flash, 2 SD slots and also a headphone out port unlike the Canon. Both cameras work well in low-light situations, the Canon able to reach a higher ISO.
What I would like to know is in the long run, which camera is better and more suited for filmmaking and why? Is there an equal amount of equipment available for either?
Both similar price, but diving into something like this I would like to try and find a clear winner. All help appreciated, thank you.

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic