This preference may last another generation, but some of the Sony cameras are as bulky as Canikons. Eventually people will relearn how to shoot two-handed, where balance is not a thing, because the left hand, not bulk in the body, offsets the lens. Before the Canon T90, the best SLRs were svelte.

Please see my response at 10:47:27. That adapter was released with their first EOS-M system - in fact, I believe it was included 'at no cost' with the first one, and is useable with all of them.

ddgg
We are very sloppy in our use of language. For some people, "bridge camera" and "super zoom" are the same thing, while for others "super zoom" is a lens and "bridge" refers to almost any camera that is not Interchangeable Lens. Most people mean "Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera" when they say "Mirrorless", and they should more precisely say "MILC". Rangefinder cameras, such as the "Yashica Minister III" I purchased in 1969 with college graduation money {and still kind of worked the last time I tried it} and the "Canon QL19" I purchased in 1973 {and drowned in 1979} were conceptually different because the lens was not readily removable and the viewfinder/focusing was a different optical path. Canon made some inexpensive "A" cameras, but I'm not aware of anything today with a separate optical path for the viewfinder.

Ironically, three years ago I switched from Canon back to Pentax, the one company showing no interest in MILC - see the DPReview interview with them
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/3329510590/ricoh-interview-the-development-of-the-k-series-is-our-first-priority
but I have continued to follow Canon. When they first released their EOS-M system, they also released a full-function adapter
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/883406-REG/Canon_6098b002_EF_M_Lens_Adapter_Kit.html
Since so much functionality is lens-based in their systems, I believe the phrase fully compatible with all lens functions, including image stabilization and autofocus implies "full-functionality", but until now they hadn't had a body worthy of their EF lenses.

I have to admit that at the time I viewed the lamp posts as obstacles; there were so many {literally} moving pieces that I kept moving to change perspective in case there was something I wasn't thinking of at the moment. Thank you for your comments pointing out some of the things I wasn't thinking of.

Canon has had that for several years.

That depends on what you mean by "convenience". In the film age, I shot Kodachrome - I got it right in the camera or I didn't get it; the habits I developed then are still with me {only my last film camera had a motor drive, and today I still forget burst mode}. With zoom lenses I can pick perspective, then pick framing; with prime, either framing is chained to perspective, or I have to try lens after lens. I prefer the former .... and I think "convenience" is a rather weak word to describe the concept.

I was in Chicago on personal business yesterday, but of course I had my camera with me, and I kept my eye open for 'the picture'. As I passed the corner of Lake St. and Wabash Ave, the northeast corner of 'The Loop', I said to myself "Tall buildings, trains, cars, and people - the heart of Chicago must be here somewhere", so I stood around for twenty minutes and took a picture each time a train went by; of course that is a weakness of mine - I didn't think of taking a burst of pictures each time. If I had taken bursts, perhaps 'the perfect picture' would have been in that pile, but here are the three that come the closest in my estimation.

I am an admitted non-artist, so I'm interested in opinions of the relative 'value' of these three.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

And it takes many prime lenses to replace one zoom lens such as my 18-135.

Any news yet? If not, did they guess when you might hear something?

The OP means it when he says "nothing scientific here" - he talks about MFT cameras as being "full frame", but that is a misuse of the term as normally used. Normally the term "full frame" means the sensor is 36mmx24mm .... an MFT sensor is more like 18mmx12mm, and most size/weight 'advantages' come from that difference, as do IQ differences. The one true advantage MILCs have - but people keep ignoring - is the advantage EVFs have in seeing better in darkness; my DSLR can do that only in 'Live View', and that is awkward hand-held.

I found many years ago that a projected Kodachrome slide was no better than a 3000 x2000 scanned image of that slide. Personally, I believe your 8"x10" limit in way too restrictive

I have Epson, Plustek, and Nikon scanners. After scanning, I inspect at 100% and fix issues; I am quite certain that camera method would perfectly preserve every scratch, fungus spot, etc on slide, so that would provide worst image; I know from experience that Epson does that also, so I wouldn't recommend that either. My Nikon does the best job, but they no longer manufacture them, so unless you go used, Plustek would be best. Negatives would be better than prints, but if you don't have negatives, I would think of two setups - Epson for prints and Plustek for slides - especially if you want to finish in this lifetime.

Some people seem to think they're punishing us by leaving.

Most likely, it was someone who

(1) posted in this section, rather than a section meant for photographs

(2) asked for comments, but complained when someone said something 'un-nice', starting another 'food fight'