Well, lots of naysayers, but personally, this is far closer to what I want in a camera than any thing else out there. Let's assume that the specs are reasonably accurate ... speed that blows away pro DSLRs, 5 FPS, standard, all the way up to ... 60 FPS ... why would I need a heavy, obese DSLR, that might be able to do 8 FPS? Images I've seen at 3200 ISO look pretty clean, and I would be thrilled for 1200 ISO clean, as I remember film. At base ISO, any compact can compete with anything else out there ... and add speed for the kids dance and athletic activities, I'm covered. Since my first serious camera, a Nikon F, built like a tank, and sounded like one, too, I've wanted small and quiet. Well, this appears to be small, quiet, and very competent, and innovative, in that confluence of video and still. Complaints, sure, I have plenty, but I can live with most of them. If I'm using aperture preferred, I'm probably on a tripod, so time is not an issue; I can go into a menu to set it, and if I'm street shooting, I would probably use one of the auto settings. Price, well, EVFs are expensive, and the Nikon seems right in there with what is offered elsewhere.
All this negative nattering ... even if the speed is somewhat hyperbolic, say it's only a 1/4 as fast as Nikon says, well, that is almost twice as fast as the big Pro DSLRs, aren't any of you paying attention? It seems to me that Nikon has done some engineering, and all the young whippersnappers are acting like ... well ... luddites. And, we haven't seen real world results, yet. PFUI!
All this negative nattering ... even if the speed is somewhat hyperbolic, say it's only a 1/4 as fast as Nikon says, well, that is almost twice as fast as the big Pro DSLRs, aren't any of you paying attention? It seems to me that Nikon has done some engineering, and all the young whippersnappers are acting like ... well ... luddites. And, we haven't seen real world results, yet. PFUI!