Nikon Rumors came up with a picture that MAY be the MX - even they say they're not sure. It looks like a Nikon SLR with a huge prism housing and a very large lens mount (lens mount looks larger in proportion to the camera than even a Canon EF mount, let alone the much smaller Nikon F mount. There is no lens on the picture, so the mirror is visible. If this is real, it tells us three things...
1.) This is a one-piece SLR - NOT an electronic rangefinder or a modular camera.
2.) It uses a 3:2 aspect ratio, like 35mm - NOT a 4:3 or square aspect ratio - the mirror was visible, and, if anything, was a bit wider than 3:2 (I'd say 16:9 or 16:10 is more likely than 4:3 from that mirror) - it's probably 3:2, but if it's not, it's wider, not squarer.
3.) From the size of the mirror compared to other parts of the camera (of course, we don't know how big the whole camera is - it could be the size of a Pentax 67, and then the sensor is also large), it looks like the sensor, while bigger than 35mm, is in the Leica S2 size range, not the full medium format size range.
The shot doesn't show the bottom of the camera, so it's impossible to tell if it's the size of a D3 or a D700 (or in between). I'm guessing D3, only because they could get a big battery in there (it doesn't look like there's room for a battery in the grip).
If this is true (that it's a more reasonably priced S2 competitor), how does this affect everyone's thinking? Personally, I'm less interested than I was when I thought it might be an electronic rangefinder with a square sensor (although it DOES make it a much easier camera for Nikon to build - a 30x45 mm one-piece SLR is not a big stretch for a company that builds great 24x36 mm SLRs). I like square formats and 4:3 formats better than 3:2 - just my personal aesthetic choice. This will probably not be any lighter than existing MF SLRs, although it may well have a higher frame rate (the 35mm shape body gives them more room for fast motors, and for processing hardware, but it is less space and weight efficient than a boxy body). A D3 is actually heavier than some MF body/back combinations.
Unless it's either highly weatherproof or MUCH cheaper than a body/back combination, it's not the best fit for my landscape work - I'm looking to move because I don't especially like the 35mm form factor (either cameras or images), in addition to wanting the big jump in image quality. This version of an MX would be intended for people who like a lot of things about 35, but just want more pixels. What about other folks here who are contemplating MF? Would a "super 35" be more or less attractive than what we have now for your style of shooting? Would its probable high ISO leadership be more or less important than a 14 bit (instead of 16) image pipeline - this looks so much like a D3 that I suspect it'll have the D3's image processing as well (possibly a double version if the pixel count is high enough to need it)
-Dan
-Dan