[Brightcolours]

Ergonomics are very subjective.

The two cameras with the best ergonomics I've ever used were the Pentax K5 and Olympus E-M1. The way the Pentax operated was amazing. I know some people tend to like large cameras, but I don't. It's very personal. Did you handle an E-M1 ? The grip is perfect IMO, better than any DSLR I've ever used.

 

As far as AF goes AF inaccuracy is inherent to the technology used in DSLRs, except if the AF sensor is on the imaging sensor. All the DSLRs I have used suffered from some inaccuracy (I didn't try a Canon 6D, but the technology does still suffer from the same limitations).

 

The fact mirrorless works on the final image is extremely more powerful and flexible. The whole mirror mechanism in a DSLR is a major limitation, you really can't argue with this simple fact.

 

Now, regarding OVF vs EVF. Again, it's personal. I consider it to be an advantage. You actually see what you're going to capture. I don't care if it's not exactly what my eyes see. What I want to know is what my camera sees, so I can adjust the exposure accordingly! Furthermore, anything can be added to the EVF as it's just a matter of implementing it in software. This is not the case with OVF which is why the info in it is extremely archaic and limited.

 

DSLRs have just way too many shortcomings. They are greatly limited by the legacy of the mirror. In other words, they are technology limited. This doesn't even include the cost issue related to manufacturing, alignment, tolerances, etc. of the whole mirror AF mechanism.

I have not held a E-M1. Funny thing about grips: in the time of the successful 350D, people in forums would keep hammering on how bad thin/small its grip was. Now people claim that the similar E-M1 grip is the best they know. Right. The 6D's grip is by most accounts very comfy, by the way. Have you held one yet?

 

Ergonomics are not about the grip, though. It is about how easy the camera is to handle/operate.  I don't find cramped small camera bodies the most ergonomic, controls need to be closer together and smaller. Only quibbles I have about the 6D's ergonomics: The AF point change could be easier implemented and no direct WB button. That last thing is easily circumvented by just using the Q button to go to WB every time, just one button press more. Funny thing about that Olympus: it is not really a very compact MILC, so not pocketable. There goes one advantage. And then it only has a small sensor (2x crop), which makes its not so small size less sensible too.

 

That you only have used DSLRs which had less than optimal AF performance does not say much. You have not tried a 6D, a 70D, a 1D-X, a D4s, a 5D mk II or a D750. There are HUGE differences between cameras in tracking performance, and in single shot AF accuracy. Like I wrote above, Foto Magazin found that the Canon EOS 70D outperformed the mirrorless cameras when using PD AF in accuracy. And my 6D is very accurate.

 

Now, why is the "whole mirror mechanism" on a DSLR  limitation? It allows for very good and fast AF (PD AF via  powerful AF module), and allows for a real view on the world without limitations like noise, lag, frame rate, screen clutter, studio flash photography problems, heat generation by the continuous live view sensor operation.

 

You seem to have chosen the wrong DSLR brands in the past. The OVF allows for a more artistic experience, and when needed one can simply use live view (including remote live view via an iOS/android device).

I must admit that I am more of an artist than a snapshooter, and I can very well understand that a DSLR is not for everyone. And that the ability to shoot with shallower DOF is not for everyone either.

 

But the idea that DSLRs are somehow inhibited by limited technology... is just a close minded blanket statement, in my opinion.