Originally posted by illdefined I think Sony heard the criticism (and the m4/3rds competition) and is starting to do a better job
It's not enough just to make the lenses smaller; they also have to make them better. I don't hold out any high hopes for the Sony 16-50. It's going to be hard for Sony to make small lenses as good as Olympus does, not only because Olympus is better at it, but Olympus is working with a smaller sensor that works better for mirrorless in terms of building a complete system.
Originally posted by illdefined agree with you here, but if intentionally choosing a bigger camera, wouldn't it generally be preferable to carry the biggest sensor the mount allows?
That depends if you can afford it and/or if you want to bear the extra weight. What if you want a mid-sized camera? What if you find the mirrorless cams too small and the FF DSLRs too big? What if you want a Goldilocks camera, a camera that is just the right size? In a large market you're going to see lots of choices: products to fit everyone's needs. There's no need to herd everyone into mirrorless and/or FF ghettoes.
Originally posted by Winder You don't need more than 3-4 lenses to do a wedding, and none of the big monsters. A Full Frame Evil with 5 lenses in the system would meet the needs of this entire industry.
Don't most wedding photographers use zooms? A few years back I heard a wedding photography say that the 70-200/2.8 is the favorite lens for wedding photogs. That would pretty much would take the mirrorless FF out of the equation for many, if not most, wedding photogs.