Originally posted by derekkite ... How about shutting the lights off in that studio then doing the shoot?
Well, what if our houses are not made to endure a direct impact of the tsunami wave, or an earthquake of the magnitude 10 on a Richter's scale, or a direct impact of the 15 gigatons nuclear bomb explosion?
All products are designed to work well within certain reasonable specs, and within certain tolerances that make common sense. Understanding of them, understanding of the nature of our work and aligning them together, makes one a professional minded photographer — as opposed to a wild-guessing amateur.
In the case of Olympus, what was pointed out is the education of studio photographers and showing them new options. In a studio, a photographer wastes very little energy, keeps all under control, everything is monitored, nothing unpredictable, etc. so for that kind of environment, even a modern m4/3 camera will do the work well and one needs no more than that.
But the problem arises is when newbies to photography start taking extreme scenarios into account, and based on it compile a list for their "required gear"; then most of the time, a rugged FF is the "only way" for them. Then even HD DA Limiteds aren't enough, but must be weather sealed. Kit lenses must be bomb-proof. Camera must be nuclear-fuel powered and one charge enough for 50 years of use. Etc.
All of a sudden, nothing is good enough anymore. It is same as when some paranoid home construction company decides to make all their houses absolutely earthquake-proof, fire-proof, water-proof, etc. Which is ridiculous, of course, because each house would be a bomb shelter house.
Newbies have such an attitude because they have no established line of work, no accumulated experience, and don't know how to control the risk and live with it.