I know what you're saying, but video, imho, is not for dabblers. Unless the camera can do professional-level video in all respects (sound, codec, etc) to me it's pointless. My videographer friends who dabble in stills always wonder why the camera makers bother with video. Canon, Sony and a few others apparently often get it right, which is why the 5DIII is a popular video tool. But on things like the Df, why?
But yes...it's omission was almost certainly a marketing decision. Less-for-more 
- N.
My wish is just to see a maker not predetermine a market.
I think that's what Michael's essay is about. I know from a lifetime of projects, the projects that worked had inspiration, the willingness to adapt to the situation and a goal to produce the best work that could be done on the day.
No segment oriented thought, no playing to a single age, ethnic, geographical, monetary market only. Just produce the best still, movie, commercial, utube, flicker, instigram piece you can and you'd be amazed that how many people it will pull from every demographic.*
Same with cameras.
I think the whole DF thing is a marketing ploy. I like Nikons, the film versions more than the digital models, but in an era of declining sales, I don't see the point in hobbling anything.
It seems to me that since olympus was first out of the block (other than Leicas M series) with a digital camera that had some of the look of a traditional film camera everyone followed suit. Nikon, Sony and Fuji.
But the DF is what it is and it's not for my work, though if the Sony A7 had the codecs, the autofocus of the Panasonic gh3/4 and the still capabilities of the Olympus em5/1, Sony would have gotten my money, because when you combine the pana and the oly given they use the same lens mount, you really have one system that works well in both still and motion imagery.
If only the olympus would hardwire tether to a computer, then they'd be about perfect, but the A7 is all over the map.
Lots of lens options, but few new native lenses, xlr inputs for sound, headphone jack to monitor, but a small 28mbs codec in 2k.
Also the autofocus sensors don't cover the whole sensor which confuses me with a mirrorless camera and these aren't features that aren't out there now, they're just features that are either limited due to price or omitted to rush a product to market . . . or worse Sony is afraid to get into territory that covers their higher priced cameras.
Digital cameras aren't film cameras, but could learn a few lessons from what worked in the past, what would work today.
From the past, having an f stop ring on the lenses and a shutter dial on the body is simple and doesn't take any thought as to which dial does what.
Right angle grips that have all the controls on the grip (including being able to move the focus points) are smart and have been around a long time.
For new think, the Fuji Xti viewfinder that does a second screen for spot focus is ingenious, mirrorless, if good and you take the time to get used to it can an amazing aid.
A mix of modern and old, like the olympus add on finder that goes horizontal to vertical gives you options that most medium format cameras don't even offer today.
IMO
BC
*of the projects we've produced that didn't have great success were always because they were limited to a certain segment or over thought. In other words they were limited by a set of rules before we even started. Nothing great ever comes out of fear which is a form of limiting a service or product.
