This SLR concept, alas, is a prime example of what happens when a designer tries to "push the envelope" without doing any research. We've seen concepts that weren't awesome making the blog rounds before, but never one with as many flaws as this one, which is why we bring it up.
The design, which is essentially a monster lens without the camera body, is touted as being optimized for one-handed operation, which would supposedly make it more stable; the opposite is true. In actuality camera stability comes from three points--one hand on the lens, one hand on the body and the eyepiece pressed against your unmoving head. Taking away one of those points has the same effect as removing a leg from a table.
Ill-considered ergonomics: a) removing the weighty camera body from a lens of this size will create balance problems and fatigue if you're shooting multiple shots, and b) how do you set this camera down during a long shoot--are you meant to stand it on the lens, or watch it roll across the table?
Camera life and maintenance: the concept is comprised of multiple moving parts, a maintenance no-no. Ask a pro shooter, particularly a travel photographer, what tends to fail first.
Inaccurate ideas: the ring-flash wrapping the lens is tagged as "optimal lighting," which it hardly is; any shooter will tell you a ring-flash is specialty lighting only good for certain situations--go to Flickr and search "ring-flash" to see for yourself.
Poor interface: A powerful element that distinguishes one camera design from another is its interface--the Canon G9, for example, has a dial on top for ISO, making it extremely fast and easy for the shooter to adjust for changing light. Having quick access to controls is often the difference between getting your shot or not. This concept appears to have given minimal thought to how to control and tweak a camera's various features, as indicated by an almost complete lack of buttons, dials and switches.
Out-of-touch with developing technology: The hubbub in photo tech is around the current work being done with water lenses--where focal points and apertures are determined by electrically-manipulated droplets of shape-changing water, rather than heavy pieces of shifting glass. This will make lenses smaller, not bigger.
We're all for pushing the envelope and experimenting with alternate forms; what worries us is when ill-conceived concepts get widely publicized--we feel it damages the credibility of industrial designers.