[thxbb12]

You can un-justify the price when there is no mirror mechanism and no expensive prism, yet the same price as a pro DSLR, though.

Not sure that equation works. An OLED display (plus quite a few optical elements) is hardly cheaper than the prism and a few mechanical parts for the mirror. Plus, taking away the mirror makes traditional phase detect AF impossible and requires either on-sensor solutions or lots of calculation power. Both not cheap... in terms of engineering, production and battery consumption.

Still: obviously both Canon and Nikon see a market niche they want to fill. Especially now that Sony caught some prestige clients in the pro market.

My point was not to prove ML or classical DSLR pro bodies inferior or superior. The point is: this is a really demanding market niche and in order to make any pro in that niche consider switching, they need to come up with some really good ideas to solve the potential downsides of the mirrorless approach. Or offer features, that simply wouldn't be possible with a DSLR, but would create a market advantage (for the users). And to be attractive for those clients, they first of all need pro grade lenses and pro grade bodies... where "pro" is definitely not only defined by the number of shots per second.

In terms of mirrorless, Sony is far ahead in that market for now. But their share of the total market is minimal. It's still dominated by Canon and Nikon.

The DSLR contains the same on-sensor solution and computing power...

Nikon and Canon DSLRs don't feature IBIS. It doesn't come for free...

Canon put IBIS in their R6 and R5, prices are way lower than those DSLRS... Sony puts IBIS in their A7/A9 series, also not that expensive. Nikon also puts IBIS in their Z series, even the bottom one (Z5). So, apparently adding IBIS does not make a big price difference.

IBIS is certainly far from costing nothing. It's just that the cost is offset by other things or that ML camera are taking smaller margins than their DLSR counterparts.