I don’t see the appeal in mirrorless cameras. At least for now. The only main advantage I see being flaunted around is that they are “smaller and lighter”. Usually when someone decides to go for a DSLR it’s because they want better quality and better control, and to achieve things you can’t normally do with a point-and-shoot. Without trade-offs. What’s the point of a “smaller and lighter” body, if you’re still going to have to carry 3 or 4 lenses (wide, standard 50mm, telephoto, and macro if you’re into that stuff) around?
A mirrorless is a nice, solid upgrade from a point and shoot, or an even nicer upgrade from a smartphone, no arguing. In the league of even a cheap DSLR like the T4i… they are not. But at least, with some models, you can keep your investment in glass when moving to the real thing later.
Basically right IMO, but there are three areas where mirrorless cameras are even more behind… high ISO performance (quality), lack of viewfinders (composition)..........Ever tried to compose an architectural shot using an extreme wide-angle lens without a viewfinder? It is impossible. Not hard. Impossible.
Once a camera is too large to fit into your pocket, the size of it really doesn’t matter all that much.
Mirrorless cameras are not equivalent to DSLRs. The lack of an optical viewfinder alone makes these cameras just expensive toys.
The readership doesn't appear to be too impressed (or rather, informed).
And besides all that, Canon is not now, nor was it ever, "the most affordable".
oh... I'm confused now... I was responding to the OP and the blog article... sorry :-/I didn't mean to single out Canon, but rather just used it as an example.