I would buy one if it had a built-in viewfinder...even a crappy one.
Yes, yes, yes. I will not be interested in ever owning another camera without a viewfinder, whether built-in or mounted on the hotshoe. My Canon S95 is in retirement because of the Panasonic LF1 pocket camera with built-in (however small) EVF.
cprevost: My guess is that it's going to be a re branded Panny. The new GX2 is coming out at that time. It'll have built in viewfinder, micro four thirds sensor, and in body image stabilization. Supposed to harken back to the Panny L1. Look for Leica to rebrand that one with the red dot and a few firmware tweeks.
My guess is a re-branded Lumix G-series.
Jim Radcliffe: Well, it appears to be exactly what I expected Canon to produce. No viewfinder and not really pocketable unless you are using the kit lens and have a good sized pocket (for camera and cash).
It's good they used the APSC sensor but honestly, if I were going to mount a 70-200mm on anything the body would have be more substantial than this. What is the point of a small, mirrorless camera using EF lenses other than to please those who already have those lenses?
To me this seems to have been thrown together just so Canon can say they have a mirrorless "system". The entire design seems to be aimed at NOT having any impact on their DSLR line. I think Fuji has a better concept.
I'm sure it will be "perfect" for many who already have invested in Canon glass and those who are within the Canon fold.
My primary system is Canon, but this is not for me. I will not hold an interchangeable-lens camera as though I were inspecting a dirty diaper. The lack of provision for an electronic viewfinder is a deal-killer for me.
JMCO: The Leica supplied images by Jacob Aue Sobol of Magnum are infinitely more interesting examples.
Yes! I downloaded the orange-filter shot of Notre Dame Cathedral and the image is impressive. Much better example of the Monochrom's capability than the stuff presented here. Thanks for the tip!
Tom Barry: Maybe I missed it, but were color filters used on the lens(es) when the sample photos were taken? If so, it would be informative to include the color of the filter, if any, used for each shot.
That was my impression, but as whomever wrote the specs list didn't know this is a rangefinder, not a "rangefinder-type," I wanted confirmation. Sadly, you're probably right. The images as presented are useless. It seems to me that if DP Review wanted to show what the camera can do, it would show what the camera could do when used as it would be in the real world - with filtration.
Maybe I missed it, but were color filters used on the lens(es) when the sample photos were taken? If so, it would be informative to include the color of the filter, if any, used for each shot.
In the specs list you refer to the body as "rangefinder-style mirrorless." No. It is a rangefinder, period.