It is a superb camera.
Some of the detractors being right, but the build quality and the attention to detail with the available optics are, I dare say, unique.
Still I have a rather large bone of contention with the statement in the review that this sort of camera would be suitable for photojournalism (or in this day, associated with that field of photography). That may have been true in the 1950s, when SLRs were still rare and practically-usable autofocus was about 35 years in the future.
Actually earning part of my income from photographing national- and international-level ballroom dancing events (both latin and standard), I would be most ineffective with anything sporting a viewfinder. I have to concentrate on too many other things to have the time left over to consider which part of my field of view would end up in the frame and which would not. OK, that is a pretty specialised field of application, but it is nonetheless typical of much of Photojournalism. The photographer simply has to see in the viewfinder what is going to be in the shot the moment the shot is taken, because a hundredth of a second later, the shot cannot be taken any longer. That is why all press photographers that I know of (w/o exception) use high-end SLRs with high-end, wide-range zoom lenses.
If you're doing photography as an art and can afford to take the time to set up your shots, this camera may very well be worth the expense, though. It is extremely solidly built, and as noted before, the available optics are beauties.