In the seventies and eighties three big names of photography made what seemed an obvious entrance in the professional market, only to withdraw later on.
First Minolta. The XM (XK in some markets) was a top-everything camera and the lenses who got with it in the following years were certainly up to any Japanese competition if not better. But the XM (1974 if memory serves) was the first and last "professional" body.
Then Pentax. Again the lenses were absolutely on par with any Japanese competition and the LX was a compact, modern (TTL daylight and TTL flash), sealed (a first) and quality built professional camera. The first, and the last, by Pentax.
Around 1984 Olympus came out with the OM-3 and OM-4 which seemed an evident commitment to the higher segment, professional or semi-pro. Immediately after they got out of film reflex altogether.
I read somewhere the following explanation, which I deem quite right: camera makers do LOSE money on very high quality professional camera. That is true for Nikon, Canon, Leica etc.
They accept to produce those cameras at a loss, because the buyer will tipically buy several (and high quality) lenses, where they have higher margin (in percentage and in absolute value).
The trend of the sixties toward "proprietary" bayonet mount made this kind of marketing quite rationale.
So, you produce the XM (or the LX, or the OM-4) and it is great. But if only amateurs will buy it (people who would need 4 years to buy a 28, 50, 135, and maybe a flash, a bellow later on) you are not going to continue playing the game because there will be no profit. You might think the "flagship" will give "prestige" to all the line, but it is a costly marketing effort.
Entering the professional arena is "easy", but in the long run it makes economic sense only if you can convince the "real professionals" to switch to your system.
This is hard for two reasons. The first and obvious is that the proprietary bayonet mount tend to "lock" the professional user to his camera make of choice, because he will typically have a big investment in it.
The second is more subtle: a professional needs support. He needs to find assistance when he goes to an important sport event, he need to find somebody who will rent him a lens if he's got a problem (or a special need, or he want to try a new lens).
Retaining professionals means, to begin with, having a "structure" in place at every major photographic event to support professionals. That is costly.
I have spoken to a professional sport photographer last year. He choose Canon over Nikon only on the ground of the kind of support Canon Italy gives as compared to what Nital (Nikon in Italy) gives. Professionals don't look that much at technical features, they look at what happens if a lens fails in the midst of an event. Is there anybody who will try an immediate fix, or lend you a lens as a substitute? That is what matters. So in most countries the choice is only between Canon and Nikon (in the 135 market segment) and in some countries only one of the two is really viable.
And what if you go on a trip and somebody steals a lens or a body? Will you be able to find somebody to rent it to you?
So the problem with Sony today is the same it was with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus of yore. If they put a "structure" in place to support the professionals, if professionals adopt Sony, if rent-a-lens begin offering Sony gear, then you can be sure Sony is going to make ground in the professional market.
If at "photographic events" there is no Sony stand and assistance, and no Sony rental, than you know it is the same old story as ever, Sony will quietly go back to limiting themselves to the consumer market, which is less risky and gives more immediate rewards.
The coming Olympic games will be a good test to see if really Sony wants to be a player in the professional market.
If they are not there, I would not bet on the next generation of professional Sony cameras, and I would not invest in Sony equipment (regardless of the quality of Sony-Zeiss material) to avoid remaining locked in a system which remains limited in the main commercial segment in the future.
"Commitment" to the professional segment is demonstrated by putting in place said "structure". No structure, no party.
Cheers
Fabrizio
