But the D2X also worked outside the studio
I never said it didn't. I pointed out that in certain controlled situations it is at least on par with many of its alternatives.
Its just such a pity that so much photography is done outside the realm of 'controlled situations'
- Steve McCurry used one for his (large page) book Looking East (I asked him).
And?
Thats totally irrelevant to my point. I seem to recall that Steve shot his famous Afghan girl image using film on a Nikon SLR (although that's from a Sunday morning not yet caffeinated memory!). But I'd be willing to bet that if you asked him whether he'd shoot another assignment like that now, leaving aside any issues of nostalgia, if you have him the choice of his film camera, a D2x, or a D3s/D3x, then which one do you think he'd choose? (I'll give you a clue, it won't be the D2x!)
Further, I see the E-5 as really not that limited at all, if I am not mistaken. I don't have one yet - I'll wait for the price to drop somewhat. But the wedding photographer's experience that was linked to a while ago suggests that the E-5 can readily handle weddings, which I take to be fairly challenging.
You are mistaken.
Everything is 'limited' in some ways, and everything exists within the context of what other options exist at the same point in time (unless you happen to be a 1022 bubble dweller of course).
So while I have no doubt that someone could shoot a wedding with an E5, I am also just as certain that many aspects of that job would be limited in comparison to having shot it with a top pro body from one of the big two.
As for buying an E-5 if I didn't own lenses, I don't know. I like the 4:3 aspect, the smaller lenses (admittedly not MUCH smaller),
Some are indeed smaller. But some are BIGGER. And many people are talking about only being worth upgrading to an E5 if you have the SHG lenses, and nearly all of those are bigger than their equivalents.
and the greater dof (which is generally a lot more useful than less dof).
Come come now. There is no ability for FT to magically obtain 'greater DOF'. I thought all these equivalence threads (and for some .... even real life shooting!) would have proved that. Seems its not the case. Ho hum .... guess we still need a few thousand more threads on the matter before it starts to sink in ....
I think however I'd be worried about the longer-term developments and not buy in. Moreover, I think that the main FT advantages (more discrete, smaller) will be better realized in mFT down the road.
I agree. However don't you see how bizarre the E5 and the SHG lenses actually are therefore, as they are the complete antithesis of what you've just described!
Still, my main point is that for most purposes the E-5 will work well and that it doesn't make sense (for me at least) to change horses just now.
That may very well be the case. Its probably the exact same case for someone like myself who is also looking at the E5 with interest (although I confess I can't remember exactly what YOU use your oly cameras for). The trouble begins when you start to justify the purchase with words like 'professional', 'wedding', 'equivalent' and such.
