[Brightcolours]

Typical reply of someone who does not get why some prefer OVF.

I do get it, of course I do as I do prefer OVF. And does that mean that I never use liveview? No of course not. And does that mean that I never use my iOS devices as tiltable (remote) liveview screen? No, of course not.

I also prefer FF for the possibility of shallow DOF. That also does not mean that I only shoot shallow DOF images.

[JJ_SO]

Typical reply by someone who is completely incapable of giving a number or percentage, what "many prefer OVF" really means   how much is many?

This is actively working with nebulous statement, impossible to prove.

Besides, intelligent people could have noticed that I didn't deny "many prefer" (as I also can't look up any number for it), I'm just saying (better: guessing), a lot of the many never compared a modern EVF and it's advantages to a modern OVF. Because contrary to you, I get the response when someone takes my Z 7 and expresses his amazement by how good an EVF can be - and you and me know, not all EVF deserve to be called "good".

And by "who doesn't get it" you shoot out the next verbal rubbish. You really think, I shoot 25 years in total with various OVF, including MF and don't get it, old grumpcolors? 

[Brightcolours]

It is not about horrible EVFs of yesteryear at all, JoJu. I too can see the advances made when I try an EOS R or some Sony in a camera store. Do they give the same experience you get with an OVF? No.

I write "many", I did not write "most".

I can accept that you prefer EVF, somehow you can't accept that others might prefer OVF. You clearly do not get that.

https://www.diyphotography.net/ovf-vs-evf-philosophical-difference/

[JJ_SO]

Slightly wrong again. I do accept everyone prefering an OVF who tried an EVF. I just don't accept OVF users coming up with a biased prejudice against EVF without even tried one. I think, we can agree, that no type of VF only has advantages and no disadvantages? All of them have downsides, like blackouts, inaccuracies, overloaded with icons, power consumption, dark finder because of slow lenses, refresh rate inacceptable.

DSLRs are not dead - as long as analog cameras are around the time has not come to swipe off the modern, expensive cameras. But there will be slow pace - if pace at all - in developing new ones.

[toni-a]

In an interview with a Canon executive Yuichi Ishizuka, President and CEO of Canon Europe, Ltd and Managing Executive Officer when asked same question
"Even though mirrorless can create incredible images, there are still some areas where DSLRs are better. Currently Autofocus is better with DSLRs, and s2e photographers prefer to have zero latency in a viewfinder - although viewfinders are improving. So it might be between three to five years until mirrorless cameras are better in every way than DSLRs."
Translates Canon will be making DSLRs for five more years.

https://www.redsharknews.com/business/item/6639-canon-is-probably-a-different-company-to-the-one-you-think-it-is

[stoppingdown]

But it also translates: Canon might not make more DSLRs within six years...

---

PS I've been puzzled for a few minutes trying to understand what "s2e" stands for... Then I looked at the linked interview. LOL.

[you2]

They are dead when people stop using them. Will they eventually die; probably but maybe not. Does it matter ?

[stoppingdown]

They are dead when people stop using them. Will they eventually die; probably but maybe not. Does it matter ?

No, it doesn't matter. I enjoy my mirrorless system, other people enjoy their DSLRs. Let's just make great photos.

[brisco]

For example: I am thinking about change my Fuji XT2 (APSC mirrorless) to Nikon D750 (for example). Would you do it?. I know its a rare case .. moving from Mirrorless to DSLR …

[Brightcolours]

No, I'd go for a 6D instead. Less impressive specs, way nicer in handling/use.