It's accelerating because the availability of decent models to choose from is increasing. In the high end interchangeable lens market, there are more DSLR'S to choose from than Mirrorless. This trend will be controlled by the consumer. Companies tend to manufacturer what people want to buy. As long as there is a demand for DSLR'S, companies like Canon and Nikon will continue to make them. As the MILC models begin to mature, more people will switch over, it's simple evolution. The reality is, they are both simply cameras that essentially do the same thing. Why this childish argument about MILC'S vs DSLR'S continues is ridiculous. From what I see, the argument is less about what's better and more about justification and being trendy. Like a few of my friends, I own both. I haven't bought a full frame MILC yet because they are expensive and I already own s couple full frame DSLR'S, and since I'm not a professional photographer, the thought of buying something that doesn't really offer me anything that I don't already have, is just silly.

Very pretty.

Nice ears...

I believe they can read English, they just don't understand the meaning behind what was read and they lack the ability to construct a coherent sentence. It's a condition I find prevalent, especially on internet social media sites. Oh well, it is what it is.
By the way, I own USA authorized Nikon gear and have never had to have it repaired. I also own Authorized and Grey Market Canon gear. I've had a few lenses serviced by Canon repair in New Jersey and I haven't had a single problem. I've also never had a problem registering my grey market Canon gear with Canon.
I guess the moral of the story is, if you go grey, go Canon. They know either way they will make money, and that's why they are in business.

I looked hard at the M5 but ultimately bought the M50. In the long run, you get more for the money. I bought the adapter and use my EF lenses on the M50. It works quite will with my EF 24-105L and my EF 28-300L and I've even used my EF 100-400L II on it with great results.

Hello Linda and welcome to the UHH. My name is Robyn and I've been into photography since high school, a very long time ago. I'm on the opposite side of the country from you, just a few miles west of our country's cradle of liberty, Philadelphia.

Personally I wouldn't bring any of them or the D7000 to a theme park. I'd bring my Nikon P900. It's small and light enough to carry all day. It zooms from 24 to 2000 mm so you can go wide or get up close and personal without changing a lens. It has 16 megapixels, same as the D7000, so the image quality is pretty darn good. And, now that the ludicrous P1000 is available, the price of the P900 has dropped. The P1000 is a really good super zoom, it's just way too big.
If you want small, light and excellent IQ, the Canon G1X III fits in many pockets and has a 24 megapixel APS-C sensor and there are telephoto adapters for it if one needs to go really long. Its 15-45 lens is equivalent to 24-72 mm. I have one and it's the camera I carry pretty much all the time and its IQ really, really good, better than the D7000.
If you want to stick with your D7000, get the Nikkor 18-200 lens. It's well worth the $646 price, has excellent VR, and is fairly light and compact for a high quality lens. I have one and it pretty much lives on my D7200.

The best photo printers are manufactured by Canon. They are very large and very expensive and are not something you'd find in anyone's home. For home use the Canon Pixma Pro 100 has been designated the number one consumer/pro grade printer. I guess it really boils down to what the user likes and what kind of printing they do. For 8.5X11 and smaller black and white prints, the Canon TS9000 series printers are second to none. The Pixma Pro 10 and Pro 1 are capable of exceptionally amazing color and black and white prints but are limited to 13X19 prints. Epson, HP and several other companies make really good printers but most use technology that was developed by Canon. My top two printer manufacturers are Canon and Epson. I currently own only Canon printers.

As bad as the Eagles sucked this season, they still made the playoffs so I wouldn't count them out just yet, even though half their good players are broken. There were a few games they should have won but didn't. Oh well, I've always said it's fixed anyway.

Congrats on defeating those pesky grey rodents. I have my feeders on long Shepard hook hangers. Each Shepards hook staff has two squirrel baffles on them. There's nothing close enough, except the ground, for the squirrels to jump from so, the baffles do a good job.

And a Very Happy Christmas and prosperous New Year to you...🎄🎉

Since the M50 and EOS R are distinctly different cameras marketed to different audiences, along with the difference in size and cost, I'd say it's a fairly safe assumption the EOS R has not had a significant effect on M50 sales.

Semantics. There are two ways of looking at this KIT lens issue. It all depends on what you want to believe a kit lens is. To some people a kit lens is an inexpensive beginner lens; a lens with lesser physical and optical characteristics. To others, including Canon, it is simply a lens bundled with a camera body. Canon does not make any lenses specifically designated as KIT lenses but they do market lens kits. Canon does include lenses that fit the first description in kits of less expensive cameras, for example, the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III is often bundled with a Rebel series body making it part of a kit. The same lens may be bought from Canon for $199.

Yes, there are L series lens kits. The only thing that makes a kit lens a kit lens is it is part of a KIT. And it was a EF 24-105 f/4L II.

Not all lens kits include cheap lens. My Nikon D500's kit lens is the 16-80 f/2.8-4 which by its self retails for over $1000.

When the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III is purchased with the T6 kit, it is a kit lens that Canon tosses in to sweeten the deal. When purchased alone for $199, it is simply an inexpensive telezoom lens but, since it isn't part of a kit, it is not a kit lens. In fact, in the world of Canon lenses, there is no such thing as a "kit lens". There are lens kits but there are no kit lenses.

Not that it really matters but if the price you listed is a B&H sale price, it's actually 1 dollar more than Canon sells the EF 70-300L for, every day.