The "cons" section seemed pretty daunting:
Conclusion - Cons
* Moiré at resolution limits
* Green color cast introduced by Lens Optimization option
* High ISO noise levels (more so at slow shutter speeds, higher ISO's)
* Intrusive noise reduction (which can not be disabled)
* Various performance related issues:
o Slow startup time (6 seconds or more)
o Slow JPEG encoding / write times (15 seconds)
o Slow record review (6 seconds for RAW, 14 seconds for JPEG)
o Poor continuous shooting performance (1.66 fps, over a minute to write a burst)
o Poor SD / MMC slot performance (in some cases twice as slow as CF)
* Camera system still in 'two halves' (photo / digital)
* No direct control of contrast and color saturation
* Must shoot a RAW to take a manual WB reading
* Poor automatic white balance with flash (best to manually select Flash WB)
* Poor ergonomic design, feels very bulky, uncomfortable vertical hand grip
* Constant firmware updates ('not quite finished')
Also, it costs almost $4000 new. For that kind of money, and to be 3rd party, you'd better be the same, if not better, than Canon's quality and performance. I haven't spent nearly that much on any one thing yet, but I personally would opt for the Canon for just a few dollars more.
If it was $2,000 new, I might wonder as well. But for roughly the same cost as the Canon equivalent... why not just get the canon equivalent?