cdayton wrote:
...I understand the advantage of lightness, higher frame rates, etc. But are we losing something of the art of photography?
Not just no, but hell, no!
I used SLRs, TLRs, dSLRs, rangefinders, view cameras, and long roll portrait cameras with three different types of viewing systems. I can say, unequivocally, that the technology is not responsible for the art of photography!
Technology simply enables you to do certain things more easily. Mirrorless gear enables LOTS of things to be done more easily, and makes a few things a little more difficult (for now). You have to study your choices and decide whether or not it will benefit you.
My choice was simple. I wanted a camera that was purpose built as BOTH a still camera AND a video camera, in equal measure. That's why I bought a Lumix GH series camera (GH4 at the time). The fact that it was mirrorless made the video features far better than they would have been on a dSLR. The still features were more than adequate for my purposes, and generally remain so, although I may add a GH6 later this year to improve everything.
I don't miss mirrors. I don't miss rangefinders. I don't miss ground glass. I don't miss any of it. I welcome the new versatility.
Believe it or not, I would rather have a Micro 4/3 camera than a D850 [or insert your example brand and model here] for what I do. That's because I don't need what the D850 can do! I don't do those kinds of photography. I did my research and bought a system that made the most sense for my applications.
Is it perfect? Of course not. There is no "perfect" camera. There is, however, a camera that fits your needs right now.
At most stages of my life since 1968, I have had a camera that met my needs quite well. It has gone from Canon, to Nikon, to Yashica, to Camerz, to Calumet, to Canon, to Nikon, to Canon, to Lumix, with Bronica, Polaroid, Pentax, Minolta, Petri, Fujifilm, and Rollei thrown in along the way, whether rented, borrowed, or assigned, at least momentarily. They all had a purpose. Some served the same purpose, while others were stand-ins or tests. Most of my work was with Canons and Nikons, at different times of my career, but in nearly equal measure.
All that said, I've never confused brands, or brand status, or brand market share, with the goals of my photography. I bought (or had my employer buy) what made sense for the variety of needs I had at the time. I still have two Nikons, a Canon, a Minolta, and a Bronica, all SLR film cameras I don't use. I look at them for laughs and flashbacks, now and then.
I like that you titled this thread, "Mirrorless and dSLR". The 'and' is important, because it recognizes that we all have reasons for what we use, and they may differ considerably.