Marty4650 wrote:
(...)
Right now, we are paying a very high price premium for smaller and lighter cameras that are more portable and convenient. And we aren't getting much more than convenience for the extra money.
How do you come to that conclusion? As far as I observe, price points of m4/3 bodies and lenses are pretty close to their DSLR counterparts, at least there is no "very high" premium. The only difficult to asses camera is the GH2. It is expensive. Is it already "pro"? Pros are using it for professional work (mostly video).
There are rumors/demands/desires for an upscale weathersealed pro camera. And Olympus has said that this will eventually come.
So, what will happen when Olympus or Panasonic "beefs up" a M43 camera to a pro grade spec?
What is pro grade? I would say the pro grade you imply, isn't often discussed here. Most people want more versatile bodies than current PENs (build-in EVF, tilt screen), some call that already pro. Sure, all m4/3 cameras would profit from a performance boost (burst buffers) and that will inevitably come - even not in a pro body, because the vendors need innovation to sell their stuff.
We can assume that a pro grade cameras will have:
(...)
What will this camera cost, and how much will it weigh?
Will they sell very many of them if it costs more than a Canon 7D, but delivers less?
It depends what the camera can do, maybe it will not deliver less? A sturdy body in a smaller than 7D package can have appeal. To supply a complete line of bodies (at least more than one body concept) creates brand loyality. The likelihood that a m4/3 owner will end up with two different bodies of the same brand in his portfolio is more likely than with DSLR owners. Nevertheless, pro's in the proper sens, will not embrace m4/3 for their professional work to a great extent, therefore, I would agree with you that a pro-grade body for this work isn't needed except for special projects. But for those, an advanced m4/3 body is probably enough. By the way, pro-grade means also a lot of service offering around the camera system, which is also unlikely to be of the same grade with any m4/3 vendor.
The assumption behind this design is that "everyone wants a pro grade mini camera." And there is no doubt that this is true for some people.
But I suspect that the number of actual buyers (as opposed to window shoppers) will be so small that this will become a high end niche product for the Leica X1/Fuji X100 market.
(...)
Could this camera compete with a cheaper Pentax K5 that will have the same pro build, more features, better image quality, and be only slightly larger and heavier? (I guess that would depend on how large and how heavy a pro grade M43 camera needs to be).
Regardless of what advantages a K5 míght still retain, one thing is sure: different body concepts, same lens system is not reasonably possible. If m4/3 would advertise this more, ambitious people can be easier convinced.
When you read this forum, you get the sense that the most important feature people want is "smaller and lighter cameras."
But only in relation to a DSLR. The competitor for "pro-grade" (i.e. robust, reliable) cameras are currently (K5 is an exception) 7D, 1D MK III, Nikon D700, Nikon D3). So if an m4/3 "pro" body has about the size of the K5, you still have the aforementioned advantages plus smaller lenses.
And that they are willing to compromise on image quality and features to get this. And this is probably true for many people.
But is it true for professional photographers too? The people who will spend a lot for their gear because they need the best. These are the same people who don't mind carrying around a 2 pound Nikon D3s, or a 3 pound Leica S2, or a 6 pound view camera if that is the tool they need. Are these people willing to compromise on image quality for portability?
Portability? Could be. For newspapers m4/3 IQ is enough. The m4/3 achilles heel is battery capacity.
Simply put, when a M43 camera costs more than an Olympus E5, then it is a poor choice for a high end user. You end up paying more and getting less. And you don't even have lenses to go with your camera, and the camera may not even be sufficiently smaller or lighter.
If designed that way, a m4/3 pro will certainly be a commercial failure.
My own view, and I am certain that many will disagree, is that "pro grade M43" is a mistake. If anything, M43 should move in the other direction, to capture more of the mass market. The next generation should get smaller, lighter and cheaper
Definitely not, at least not only. G3 and GF2 is about as small as they should, we are already in the next generation. The key is diversity. m4/3 needs to supply from cheap, light, small, to versatile, portable, good performing.
.... and not bigger, heavier and more expensive.
The killer product would be a smaller and lighter EPL3 with a $350 list price. With a few small standard grade prime lenses.
These two won't work: cheap body and fast primes. People, who buy cheap, want zooms. Fast primes are for knowing enthusiasts, which don't have problems to pay for a gear what it deserves.
Everyone would want that camera in their bag.
Which bag? I can carry a GH2 in most of my bags.
(...)
--
Thomas
