He concludes the article (only available in the magazine and not online) by writing:-
"All this may be a little strange for those who see the CSC as nothing more than a compact on which you can change the lens, but if you have yet to get your hands on a CSC to see what they are capable of (and I am sure you will be both surprised and impressed) I suggest you waste no more time and try one out.
I'm not saying it will replace your existing kit, but I know that mine has become an essential piece of my photographic arsenal which I would not want to be without and it will definitely be in use on my next commissioned shoot.
After all wasn't the Leica M series the first CSC? And few of us have a problem shooting with a Leica!"
While this won't be news to many of us, the fact that the editor of a magazine, aimed fairly and squarely at the working pro, comes out with both an endorsement of CSC's and a positive recommendation to try them out is something different. The writing in this area has mainly consisted of "Yes they are good cameras, but not for serious pro work" type appraisals.
I'm currently very close to completely getting rid of everything else to work exclusively with CSC's. I earn my living shooting stock photography plus commissioned work for commercial and industrial clients. I'm hoping the next round of camera upgrades will finally give me everything that I need. Mainly with regard to low light performance. Though my on order Fuji X100 will help with that.
To be honest the bulk of what I do could be accomplished now anyway, but I'd just like to be sure I can handle everything that might get thrown my way. Not that any of this posed a problem in days gone by. High ISO work and fast responding cameras were not a feature of medium-format film work, but we all seemed to manage somehow. Nor did we have Photoshop to fall back on.
I would suggest all of this makes a nonsense of some of the opinions that get voiced on other forums. Most of which seem to be along the lines of, the DSLR is still king. Well No. The photographer and the results he/she produces are king and always will be.
I'll end with one of my favourite David Bailey stories. Back in the early 2000's he shot an assignment for Vogue and used an Olympus E-10. (4 MP) He sent the magazine a digital file (all of 10.8 MB) and got a phone call back saying we can't use this. He then printed out the file, sent them that and they happily scanned it and put it on the front cover.
So we use what we use, but we get hired for what we see.