I recall from my youth that the main advantage of SLR was sharing the same lens, and therefore its perspective, DOF, and focusing for both viewing and the exposure, and doing it quicker than with a view camera. SLRs have been refined and advanced over the decades to very high levels even to the point where after the problem with viewing though the same lens and shooting at will has been solved in ways not possible before, they now have a great legacy, including collections of lenses, experience, practice, and skill among those who relied on them for so long. In other words, why fix what isn't broken? But for others who do not have a financial, skill set, or emotional investment in the reflex design, mirrorless offers new advantages not possible before. These advantages are huge for some but unimportant to others. (I still maintain that the advantages mirrorless offer are ignored by SLR devotees because they exclude the opportunities they provide from their universe.) Very simply, sometimes new tools come along to fill a need that was simply ignored or circumvented in the past. Some say if man was meant to fly he would have grown wings. Others say he used his brain instead, so now we have airplanes and mirrorless cameras. Still, there are people who refuse to fly out of fear, a desire not to pollute, etc. It is their right, of course. Trains and cars also still work very well--there are just some things they cannot do.

You are totally correct given the context. These are heavy cameras. Mirror vibration is heavily damped by the mass of the camera attached to fast, long, heavy lenses. Even though some pros select from hundreds of frames before submitting to their editors, I would expect none are ever rejected due to mirror shake.

My car was totaled last year by a large buck sprinting, I presume, from a wildlife photographer he mistook for a hunter with a cannon. Had it run into a freight train I doubt the engineer would have felt a thing. Recall that acceleration=Force/mass.

Attached to pro sports lenses, mirrors are tiny and nearly weightless, so shutter blur is practically non-existent. Stabilization on these systems is probably more important for nature work at dusk and dawn, for investigators, and photojournalists where the lighting can be a challenge and every bit helps. Even then, it is more likely needed for human movement when hand held with long exposures more than for the mirror mechanism.

Interested in opinions concerning the functionality between DSLR's and Mirror-less cameras. I would like to purchase a mirror-less camera but I am not sold on why. Many blogs tout the future of photography but I have not seen any compelling reasons as to why I would be better off with the future as apposed to what I have at the moment .

I remember when buttons and dials were all the rage on stereo equipment. Then, that aesthetic was out and touch sensitive electronic stereo systems were "in." Now buttons, dials and switches are back...etc... Is is all aesthetics.