As a hybrid shooter, I am a little bias. But WHY would nikon make this camera have no video feature? The fact that it is missing video is what makes nikon, and ANY camera manufacturer lose my business and respect. At that point they are not trying to make the best camera they can, or push the market. They are just creating a gimic-ish product that WILL sell, because most people, don't know any better.
They may be responding to that small percentage of buyers who feel put-out, insulted, or diminished by the rise of video and the relative retreat of photography (especially in the pro arena). Some of these photogs resent that their camera has a feature that costs them nothing extra, weighs nothing, and is easily ignored, but that other photogs embrace with success and enthusiasm.
I would not buy a camera today that lacks video, in fact I have the 5DIII because it is the best overall photo/video camera I could afford. I still love photography, but I am learning video as quickly as I can. But I', not particularly brand loyal. I am watching Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, and even Nikon ... but the sum of all strengths and weaknesses still keeps me in the Canon camp.
I am seriously hoping that Canon has a response to the Sony A7 series, that sony puts the RX10 in a true video body, that Canon makes an XA20 type camera with APS-C, that the C100 gets 60p, h.264, and a price drop, that my 5D3 gets focus peaking by firmware , .... the list goes on, but you get the picture