Interesting set of assertions.
Producing a professional system ...
There's no such thing as a "professional system", but there is such a thing as a "professional quality system". Nitpicky semantics, I know. IMO a professional quality system has these attributes:
- It is robust and durable.
- It provides a wide range of options for versatility.
- It provides the range of customizations and settings appropriate for a wide range of uses.
- Photos made with a professional quality system have quality that meets the needs of the working pro photographer.
"Keeping up with the other guys" is a modern vogue amongst faux pro photographers, IMO. True pros select gear that does the job they need, at the quality level they want, and just use it. They don't want constant equipment turnover ... it's a pain to depreciate a camera in less than three years as a business expense.
Stopping the DSLR when the EVF was not a mature technology (in a sense it is not completely mature even now) means that many photographers will have to change their system at least for the years necessary to fill the gap.
The didn't stop all their DSLR manufacture ... They kept the pro grade model in production. They discontinued the lower end models which were no longer selling due to the rise in popularity of the TTL-electronic cameras, and their obvious quality and customer satisfaction.
They did exactly what I would have done if I were a company facing a technological transition. No one needed to change their systems at all ... if they were sensible, they just kept on shooting with what they had and waited for the development of the next generation. Most people today are impatient, that's all
I don't think I am making it up that the EVF technology is not up to top of the line DSLR as far as autofocus response concerns.
"EVF technology" has nothing to do with the autofocus response speed. Neither does an optical reflex viewfinder. They're completely separate systems.
The TTL-electronic cameras have all used CDAF focusing technology up until now, which uses a high resolution sensor and shuffles the focus setting back and forth quickly to establish the highest contrast point. Optical SLR cameras use PDAF focusing technology, which uses a low resolution sensor to acquire contrast data based on a translation to phase from two separated points, and tells the lens to move the focus point to a specific place.
It takes less time and energy to do PDAF focusing as you are moving the lens less and not re-evaluating results at every incremental focus point.
The watershed upon us is that the E-M1 incorporates PDAF sensing elements directly into the main imaging sensor, so it can drive lenses to a specific focus point very quickly and use CDAF to finesse the accuracy as needed. Olympus presumption in releasing this as the replacement for their pro camera seems to me to be that they have licked the TTL-mirrorless AF focusing performance problem by this new technology and it enables them to move on to TTL-mirrorless even with their pro grade camera, which is exactly what they said they would do.
Also, if we do speak of image quality, for all the progress sensor did the size advantage of FF is still there.
There are so many myths and words about sensor size I'm not going to get into it. Suffice it to say that there have always been smaller and larger formats in photography, each with their advantages and disadvantages. There is no absolute measure of image quality to a buyer's eyes.
Finally, what they did, with lines being "freezed" without stopping production but also without any visible development might have stopped other brands producing "pro" products into making their products for Olympus.
They so much as said they weren't going to develop more SLRs and were going to concentrate on bringing the TTL-electronic bodies up to their pro grade, and also that they were going to concentrate on making the lenses that the market desired. It makes no sense to try to design fast, compact, short focal length lenses for the DSLR system that they already said was on the way out. So while they produced a bunch of nice Pens and a nice portfolio of excellent lenses, in the background they worked on their pro camera that would fuse the two systems.
Tokina makes great ultrawide zooms for Nikon and Canon, not for Olympus, PocketWizard makes triggers for Nikon and Canon, not for Olympus, Sigma...
I'm not going to get into the discussion of third source lenses. As a professional, I'm only interested in the manufacturers' lens lines, and Olympus-branded lenses are amongst the best in the business. I see there's some rumor that Sigma did the design on the 75/1.8 ... if so, that's cool. Sigma's always done good lens designs, and usually mucked it up with variable construction quality. Olympus has only rarely made such an error.
Other accessories ... third party accessories ... are market driven. Nikon and Canon have over 85% of the camera equipment market in the still photography world, so it's natural that third party suppliers concentrate on them.
For my business, I chose Pentax first as they were affordable. I had a business liaison with Pentax USA for a time. I moved to Panasonic and Olympus because the cameras and lenses were more reliable, more durable, and performed as well or better for my needs. When I closed the business, I sold the equipment I no longer needed (the E-5 and three of my five lenses), kept what I wanted for my personal and art projects, and bought other stuff because I enjoy the diversity of equipment.
It's a hobby now, and a passion. It's good to be free of the professional burden. ;-)
G
