I just don't get it. It's got a prism and optical viewfinder, so it will not be small. It's just a vintage film camera hiding modern tech beneath. This is a fashion-skinned DSLR.
It's like they are going after (a) film users and (b) Fuji users who still want to look cool but with a larger sensor. Or -- big reach here -- Leica users who really want autofocus? (Surely they'd go with the new Sony rigs, right?)
So you *do* get it! I like the idea of it, but unless that's an amazing sensor it's overpriced (though not, of course, in comparison with a D4). And while I like the look of some retro cameras (they strike me as far more attractive than most other stuff designed in the 60s-80s), this could do with a dose of elegance (someone should send them an Olympus EM5...). The fact that it's not small isn't a problem - it's FF, so it needs to be a decent size to support all but the smallest FF lenses, unlike the new Sonys; unlike the new Sonys, there's a better array of native lenses to attach; and maybe it will prove less of a chore to use than Nikon dslrs, with their convoluted ergonomics.
It would be interesting to know just how important all the stuff I consider extraneous is to dslr-buying public; every time I see a list of features in an ad or review I lose interest half way through (I'm always amused by lengthy reviews which leave image quality to the end and explain that while the camera is ahead of the competition in every way, the photos don't look anything special). Will people be put off by the "less is more" list of features here? How many people willing to spend $2700 on a Nikon a camera body will want a sensor with fewer than half the number of MPs of a D800, fewer AF points than a D800, no video, etc.? (Repeat the question in comparison to a D600, for that matter.)
Maybe it will do well and encourage a competitor to come up with something similar, but more elegant and more competitively priced....