Originally posted by Adam Because they want it but can't afford it?
That may be true in a few cases, but a lot of posters in this thread alone offered good objective explanations for their disappointment (e.g., regarding the lack of an interchangeable focusing screen).
AFAIC, DPReview nailed it
in their Df preview when they write
"The danger is that the design gets in the way of usability."
The K-01 had the same problem. Both cameras are fashion statements first and tools for photography second because they sacrifice usability on the altar of "good looks".
I like solid mechanical controls and a classic look as well, but what is the point of going back to old limitations? As DPReview point out, not all old designs were better; partly they were borne out of design/production limitations. Should the Df have an advance lever that you need to operate before you take the next shoot, because this helps to "slow you down" and be more concious about your photography?
The exclusion of video is another example for unnecessary crippling. If they had optimised the technology for still photography -- e.g., by using a CCD sensor or implementing a more precise but slow sensor readout -- then I would have been in favour of omitting video. But the Df's sensor is video capable and it appears the reasons for not supporting video are purely marketing driven.
In summary, it does not feel like a camera made by photographers for photographers. It feels more like a camera made by marketing people for fashionistas.