Thus what is a primary motivating factor is the joy one derives from owning and using a certain camera.
I have two categories for equipment.
1. Camera, lights, lenses that I love using because they allow me to produce what "I" want and . . .
2. Cameras, lights, lenses, that I have to use for commerce because the work fast, or reliable or easier and allow me to get the job done.
Funny thing is they don't usually and always become cross purpose. What does that tell you about the world of commerce.
A DSLR will do anything well. Not great, not usually unique, but well. The focus fast, have long battery life, lenses are everywhere and their amazingly reliable, even for video with enough ad ons.
The issue is they don't really work that uniquely. As I've stated I'm shocked a little fit in your hand 43 camera can make a better out of camera file that suites my taste better than a camera like my 1dx that cost 3 times more.
I'm more than happy that someone (oly and pana) actually built a under $25,000 still camera that shot a 4:3 native format with a viewfinder you can focus, waist level or straight on.
As someone said the cameras that stick with me are usually more camera than digital, my contax, the leica s2, the leica m and the em-5/1. The last one is hard to quantify because it' so digital to set up but works so analog once it's done.
It's interesting but I think with mirrorless we're just at the beginning of what digital can really do. The olympus, fuji, Sony, are so close to being really professional cameras. They all shoot a comparable file, I'd rate them at olympus, fuji in a tie, Sony a third, but they also are not exactly professional with some rough patches like the fuji's lack of video and limited lenses, the Sony's apparent problems that have run from shutter bounce to light leaks along and the olympus with silly omissions like lack of tethering, finally a pc connection (which when you need it you really need it) and the worst part of mirrorless is small batteries on cameras that use a lot of power.
If Canon and Nikon wasn't so entrenched with traditional cameras they probably have the resources to build a mirrorless pro camera and knock it out of the park, but I think they'll wait until they have to, if ever.
If Olympus and Fuji weren't trying to play to mass numbers (they have to) and pick up or maintain market share they could obviously build an off the scale killer system that could do anything, if Panasonic joined one of them for video they should own the world, but people equate bigger is better an will probably buy a 5d way before they'd buy a mirrorless system.
Michael mentioned this, but think about it. With the standard 43 system Olympus built a beautiful and huge lens line thinking they could break into the pro market with a 43 dslr. It didn't happen because they were large cameras with small sensors and fairly large and expensive lenses.
But everyone here ask themselves this. Who here would buy a $4,000 mirrorless camera that did 4k video and 25 to 30 mpx stills, had the olympus lenses that costs $1800 to $3,500. A system with a software suite, tethering, pro video out, in other words everything a Canon 1dc gives you but in a smaller package for less price and more use, just smaller.
That's a hard sell.
But cost is relative. My most expensive cameras were my contax, my phase backs and RED 1's. They're now old but still more than viable. Along with profoto flash, the contax/phase are the most cost effective equipment I've ever bought, My RED 1's the most profitable.
IMO
BC