Wow, I feel the same way, just never had words that would explain how I felt about photography in general since the digital era took over. I grew up in the 80s to 90s and taking pictures of grand adventures was something that my best friend and I would do. It was important to us to have the prints and we would scrounge every penny we could find to get our pictures in our hands after all the hard work. We always had our cameras and if we developed without the other we insured to get "doubles" so we both would have the prize.

I followed suit with the digital era like most. I started out still needing prints but slowly faded out of the habit, "they are right here for free if i want to see." Over time I looked less and less and on a few occasions lost some dear memories from technical malfunction. I use to make damn sure all the prints were safe but let digital desensitize me to the point where images no longer carried the emotional impact like they did originally.

Recently, I submitted four images to a local jury show, and to my delight, every single one made the show. Two were analog and two were digital but they were all great in their own rights. My all time favorite analog won best of show. The image is great in technical terms, but it carries a deeper meaning and story for me than being just a cool print. As I type this, it occurs to me that, while I nervously paced the room on opening night I acknowledged my two 35mm analog prints and didn't hang around the digital much, they felt fake or insignificant, and I didn't want my face and name connected to "those" prints. (I didn't even bother to go see one of the two digital images) I didn't feel pride for "those" pictures, however great they really are. The prints on the other hand I pointed out and stood looking at them a little kinder.

Its just something odd that i noticed. I guess, as it turns out, I am digitally prejudice stemming from childhood experiences.

Weird thoughts come to old people with too much time on their hands.

Should we continue to call ourselves photographers? Photographers record analog images on film, process and print the images creating photographs and if you are a professional sell these little pieces of reality as a source of income. I suggest that we have become collectors and manipulators of electrons. For many, if not most of us, the great majority of our electron collections remain just that--electrons. I sent my last roll of film in for processing and what did I get back, a link to a web site so I could retrieve my electron collections. I have begun thinking of my images stored on my computer as Electron Collections and the prints stored in my photo albums and files as pictures. Electron collections only become images when they are viewed or printed.

Before I change my mind I am going to send this and see what happens

Like through... I’ll always opt for an optical VF over electronic, and I’ve soon seen some of the best out there. It’s personal preference. I know you get to see an example of the final outcome using EVF, but an experienced amateur or pro will be able to configure that for the perfect shot just about every time. Granted, EVFs make it so the normal soccer mom, or homebody, will be able to take a decent shot. But, I still believe that photographers should view what they’re saying directly optically

There are two things that make photographers drool and swoon.... full frame cameras and mirrorless cameras. Those have been mutually exclusive objects of desire, except for Sony (well, and Leica too, but who cares since they cost more than a new Mercedes).

Now Canon and Nikon are talking about offering full frame mirrorless cameras, so it's sort of a double whammy. Their respective fans are doing backflips, salivating all over the place, having heart palpitations, etc.

Canon already has mirrorless cameras... but they're all APS-C right now, not full frame. Rumor has it, they have some prototypes of a full frame MILC model in field testing, but Canon isn't saying anything about it. There have only been some hints in interviews with some of their execs.

Nikon had a mirrorless system (Nikon 1) too... but they made the mistake of building it around 1" (CX) size sensor, which is smaller than APS-C or even micro 4/3 size sensors. The Nikon MILC were such an odd duck, there was little to no support for them and only serious Nikon fanboyz and fangirlz bought them... so they were discontinued last year. But they assured their fans that they'll be back with a new full frame MILCf... and have gone so far as to advertise it... teasers that don't give an actual launch date.

When MILC were first coming to the market, neither Canon nor Nikon seemed very enthusiastic about them... and their earlier efforts at producing them were sort of weak. Even today neither of them have produced a very impressive line of lenses for use on their MILC. Maybe they were concerned about undercutting their own DSLR sales. Between the two of them, Nikon and Canon have locked up 80% or more of the DSLR marketplace. Didn't want to mess with that! And they were probably taken by surprise at the popularity of MILC... Started to notice that some of the customers they were worried about were abandoning them to buy MILC from competitors like Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus.

Despite all the hype about FF and mirrorless... No, they won't make anyone's photographs "better". There's still some skill required, regardless of the type of camera.

MILC are good at SOME things.... But so are DSLR. Full frame are also good at SOME things... but so are APS-C and micro 4/3.

One of the "big deals" of MILC is that both the cameras and lenses might be smaller and lighter than DSLR system components. That's the main reason people cite for wanting a MILC.

There are some other cool features though... for example, most MILC use an electronic viewfinder that can do things a DSLR's optical viewfinder can't. Earlier EVFs were slow, but have improved to the point they are almost "real time" like optical viewfinders. EVFs can show "exposure simulation".... a preview of sorts, so that you don't need to guess at exposure settings. EVFs also can be brighter and easier to use in low light conditions. They also can have features like "focus peaking" to assist manual focusing.

One of the problems with earlier MILC was slow autofocus. They don't have a separate array of phase detection AF sensors, the way DSLRs do. Instead MILC initially relied upon contrast detection, which is inherently slower (same as DSLR Live View, at that time). But most of the the manufacturers figured out how to embed pairs of AF pixels right into the image sensor itself, to perform phase detection focusing and greatly improve performance. Canon actually introduced their first sensor of this type on one of their DSLRs (70D), but ultimately incorporated it into their M-series APS-C MILC, as well as most of their DSLRs in both FF and APS-C formats. All Canon's current MILC now use this form of AF.

Part of what killed off Nikon's MILC was that they hadn't developed a similar solution... they outsource most of their image sensors, so don't have the flexibility to innovate in the same way that Canon does, who make their own sensors. A lot of Nikon's image sensors are bought from Sony... but those are APS-C and full frame, not 1"/CX like were being used in Nikon 1. Since they will potentially be direct competitors, I imagine Sony would be a bit reluctant to sell Nikon APS-C or FF sensors with the embedded AF tech, for Nikon to use in a new MILC series.... but they must have worked out a deal or Nikon may have found an alternate source, if their advertisements are true and they're getting close to introducing a full frame MILC. We'll have to wait and see.

Another neat thing about MILC is that most use an electronic shutter. This can be quieter than the moving, electro-mechanical shutters (and mirror assembly) in DSLRs. The electronic shutters also have potential for faster shutter speeds than are practical with DSLRs.... 1/16000 and even 1/32000 may be possible (that's about the upper limit right now, though, with current sensor tech).

DSLRs are still preferred for other things, though. Most sports and many wildlife shooters still want an optical viewfinder. There also are far more lenses available for DSLRs, than there are for MILC. Also, MILC are hard on batteries. That EVF draws power continuously and the camera is "blind" when it's turned off (advantage to optical VF).

MILC can use DSLR lenses via adapters. However doing that defeats much of the size/weight advantage of a MILC, once it's are fitted with a lens designed for a DSLR, along with an adapter.

Full frame MILC, in particular, don't see very much advantage over DSLRs in size and weight. The camera body itself can be a bit smaller and lighter than a comparable DSLRs. But lenses capable of producing an image circle large enough to cover the bigger sensor are not much different in size and weight from comparable DSLR lenses.

Another problem is the need for different lens series... With their DSLRs, both Canon and Nikon already had two series of lenses: APS-C/crop only lenses for the camera using those size sensors, as well as full frame capable lenses for use on both formats. They each also had to develop yet another series of lenses especially for their MILC (APC-S format for Canon, 1"/CX for Nikon). This has been a slow process (in five years, Canon has only produced seven EF-M series lenses).

In a real sense, other manufacturers who dropped DSLRs completely and fully committed to MILC (Oly/Panasonic, Fuji).... or who very strongly tended in that direction (Sony).... have had an advantage when it comes to lenses. They've been able to put all or most of their R&D and manufacturing resources into developing lenses especially for their MILC systems. Canon and Nikon have a conundrum, soon to be made even worse if/when they launch their promised FF MILC.... yet another lens series may need to be produced especially for those. Canon, for example, could easily end up with four distinct series of lenses with limited interchangeability: EF, EF-S, EF-M (APS-C) and some sort of full frame capable EF-M! Nikon might find it a little easier.... with "only" three lens series: FX, DX and some sort of FX/MILC lens. Whatever they do for MILC, they pretty much have to continue to produce their two DSLR lens series since Nikon and Canon still enjoy strong DSLR sales (not increasing like MILC, but also not dropping off like the point n shoot market which has been decimated by smart phone cameras).

Frankly, I've wondered if it wouldn't make the most sense for Canon to design their new FF MILC camera to utilize their existing EF series DSLR lenses. There are upwards of 60 different models of those lenses already in production and sitting on store shelves, ready for folks to buy. There's little to be gained anyway, in size/weight savings with MILC-specific, FF capable lenses. Besides, does anyone want to wait 5 or 10 years for lenses to be developed and manufactured?! (That's what's happened with EF-M... where there's more of a size/weight advantage.) The other feature advantages of MILC.... EVF, electronic shutter, etc.... would be available, regardless whether the cameras use existing lenses or a new series.

P.S. I want a MILC... probably one of the Canon like the current M5.... in large part to use with manual focus lenses, including vintage rangefinder and SLR lenses via adapters. I can do some of that with my DSLRs, but there's a limit and some vintage lenses I've got in my collection aren't easily adapted (i.e., Canon FD/FL, Konica K/AR, Minolta MD). There's a lot more opportunity with adapted lenses on MILC, thanks to their short lens register (distance from flange to film/sensor plane), which allows room for adapters. Manual focus assist features like focus peaking are another reason I'd like to eventually add a MILC to my kit. I have little or no interest in a full frame MILC. For that, I'll stick with DSLRs. Or maybe I'll go "really big", with something like Fuji's GFX medium format mirrorless!