Originally posted by lurchlarson The world of photography is at another paradigm shift. In 5 years, I doubt anyone but Canon/Nikon will have anything with a mirror and that will only be a select few people.
Just because a technology is new doesn't make it better or more compelling. Digital trounced film because it proved far more compelling to the majority of photographers. In what way is mirrorless cameras far more compelling than cameras with mirrors? Most people serious about photography will gravitate to whatever systems are favored by professionals; and that's likely to APS-C and/or FF DSLRs for some time to come. Are we really going to see the majority of professionals exchanging their DSLRs for mirrorless cameras? Are we going to find wedding and sports photographers toting around mirrorless cameras attached to their heavy f2.8 zooms? Indeed, even the cheap telephoto zooms that I see on so many entry level DSLRs aren't very compelling when attached to these mirrorless bodies. Mirrorless are most compelling when used with pancake primes. Then they make excellent secondary cameras for those who have invested in the big, heavy FF systems and need, from time to time, a lightweight alternative. But as a primary camera? I doubt very many serious photographers will want to use mirrorless systems as their primary cameras. When attached to all but the smallest zoom lenses, these mirrorless cameras are ergonomically not very compelling. And since most photographers, whether beginner or advanced, prefer zooms, it's not clear at all that any kind of paradigm shift is under way. If you want people to give up what they already have (and many have invested huge amounts of money into their DSLR systems), you need something more compelling than an ergonomically-challenged system without the OVF prefered by most serious photographers. Digital allowed photographers to produce results superior in most respects to film much more easily. What comparable advantage would mirrorless give photographers?