Once these "alternative" brands get their own lenses for the real critical key ones, like your 70-200's, a few large fast primes (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 600/4), and a few high quality wide, normal, and short tele primes (for which Sony already has a few good ones), I think the market will really open up, with better viable diversity.
I'm on the fence there, Jrista. If the lenses come
, you are dead on.
Committing to (or at least prioritizing) one mount for 25+ years continues to pay dividends for Canon. They have developed a lens portfolio that no one can comprehensively match up to. I'm not saying all the lenses are modern or best in class -- they surely aren't -- but chance are, if you need a specific sort of lens, Canon has one.
So for someone to try to match even 25% of what Canon offers would represent a staggering investment in present/future development dollars. And *what* 25% needs to be made available is not a sure thing. A company could go hog wild and offer a solid roster of 'staple pro wants' (in FF equiv)...
70-300 or 100-400 f/slow
...and folks would still
find something to bemoan the lack of: a tilt-shift, a lighter weight F/4 zoom, a fish, cheaper wildlife primes, etc. As Canon people, we often can feel the sensor grass is greener elsewhere, but everyone
pines for access to our glass (save perhaps the Leica crowd, who only need a few primes and a cocksure worldview
I want your competitive future as increased choice will only bode well for us as consumers. But I'm not convinced every rival to the Canon/Nikon dominated SLR world is prepared to or is capable of delivering that lens portfolio. Sony is certainly trying
, but Samsung, Fuji and the m43 cabal seem worlds behind in the scale of their ambitions. So I'll stick the mothership for the foreseeable future.