Millsart, just because you view m4/3 as only a \'second system\', doesn\'t mean everyone does. And yes, for many people (myself included), m4/3 is certainly good enough to sell the DSLR rig. MANY photographers don\'t print larger than 20x24 or so, and m4/3 can absolutely provide images that look excellent at that print size (even up to 20x30, though not quite as good as the newer FF options, obviously). There are also many of us that don\'t need awesome continuous AF.
The E-M5 is better than the prosumer APS-C cameras from a few years ago, and many people used those in professional settings. If it was good enough then, why is it suddenly not good enough now. I\'d also say that the E-M5 is better in most ways than the original 5D....and that was used extensively for professional work.
Now, if you need to print huge, or shoot a lot of action, or need really shallow DOF, then of course M4/3 isn\'t going to replace your SLR system. If you\'re a working pro that shoots a bazillion assignments a year, I probably wouldn\'t recommend it either. But there are a lot of serious amateurs and even some professionals who prefer m4/3 due to the size, and there is no reason not to have high end glass to cater to that market.
At the print sizes I make, I have seen no appreciable difference in the quality of my prints (except for the fact that I\'m getting better photos since I take my camera with me more places and I don\'t fatigue as early in a long day of shooting) from my 1DsII and bag full of L glass.
May 21, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Previous versions of Jman13's message #10653514 « 12-35/2.8 is out »
