@Mixer2 Yes, I want the 10-22mm for all those reasons. If I was rich I would have bought one. Maybe even flown to Japan to get it

I found the 10-22mm Sigma on CL for $300 and I can easily use it with my 50D. I also have a friend who wants a wide-angle at some point, so I can use it and pass it on to them with no loss of money. Eventually hope to get the one you mentioned.
@CinB13. For almost all casual video RAW is not worth the effort. The video that comes out of these cameras is pretty amazing. I shot a small audition the other day, used the EOS-M's native video. Very easy, good quality. If I had tried RAW I would have needed extra cards, batteries, external audio, and hours of post production. So, as you ask, why RAW?
Photography is my hobby. I shoot mostly family and friends. I like a clean look. I especially like a natural, 3-dimensional look. You can see my photos at flicr.com/maxotics, if you wanted an idea. Mostly, I used Sigma DP cameras. I've always loved film too, but video cameras that shoot video that looks like film, to me, or has the same quality as my still cameras, costs in the tens of thousands of dollars. So I shoot camera video like everyone else. What I would like is a video option, where I can shoot 10-30 seconds of video, that I could put with my stills, maybe in photo/video collages. I started seeing RAW on Vimeo and knew it was possible. I then bought Andrew Reid's "50D RAW Shooter's Guide" and tried it on a 50D I picked up. I LOVED the results. Now I'm trying with an EOS-M so I can have a camera that is very portable and can shoot RAW. I should probably wait for the Black Magic Pocket, but, again, it's a hobby, and one doesn't do a hobby to wait and act rationally

The reason you're not seeing the potential beauty of RAW is you're not shooting things you care about. If you took some footage of someone you love with normal video, and then shot RAW (or had someone shoot it) you would notice that RAW, makes the skin look natural (not yellow and red). The light would look as you saw it, not artificially bright. There would be a three-dimensional quality to the image. There would be no motion artifacts, little colored blocks dispersed thrugh the video, that everyone has gotten used to, like ugly telephone poles, but which, when removed, open up a more pleasurable viewing experience.
RAW is only better if you want certain niche things it can do. I love all kinds of cameras. I plan to shoot both RAW and in-camera video for a long, long time. Knowing I can get near perfect video, with little money (though lots of time) is just something I want.
Finally, most of the videos I post, do not show RAW in all its glory. They show certain technical differences. In fact, some have complained about how unappealing these videos look. They only mean something to others who have similar technical curiosity about what happens when one does this or that. Right now, it's about ironing out technical issues for me. My goal is beautiful video, though.