I'm impressed by the thinking behind this- all the modularity, configurability, etc. is really the direction digital should be going, because it can and it's perfect- but the execution is really wanting. The styling is exactly what you'd expect from the now-billionare who started Oakley sunglasses and flies a camouflage business jet with a big-ass RED logo painted on the tail. Following from that, lots of these configurations (especially the still ones) look chunky as hell to shoot with.
No RED-mount primes for 36x24 (except a 300/2.8), though it'll take F and EF ones, 24 megapixels. For $12,000, with no grip, viewfinder, lenses, just the sensor, processor, etc. Who the hell would want that over a 1Ds, D3, a900, or Mamiya 645 set-up?
I'm a big fan of EVFs, I'm buying the G1 as soon as some adapters hit for delicious manual primes on it, but the one in the OP looks like a fucking joke. The whole system does. You get a guy who's photographic experience is shooting races and his dogs, give him billions of dollars, and the desire and hubris to make his own camera company, and you turn out a conceptually sound system with the most ridiculous, not-for-shooting-with implementation possible. Could you really imagine any serious photographer except Jim Jannard shooting with one of these?
http://jannard.com/race.htmlhttp://jannard.com/life.htmlOr any good photographer?
From what pskaught said in a post a few weeks ago- I'm not a cinematographer, I wouldn't know- the cine ergonomics are shittastic, too.
11Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
111Image Width2000Image Height1300Number of Bits Per Component8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:13 01:22:48Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width900Image Height875
1 
