Oh did I hurt your feelings, I am truly sorry. That wasn't my intent.

I wasn't disrespecting anyone, but just stating the facts about Jared. Facts that you absolutely have NO firsthand knowledge of as you dont know him personally, and you are just making false assumptions when you see a RECORDING monitor atop his camera, without knowing why he uses one, and it has nothing to do with his not preferring his EVFs to any OVF like in your 1DX Mk III and other DSLRs. It is solely to record his EVF for his youtube videos, but I guess you didn't realize that fact. Instead you tried to turn that into some endorsement of Jared not needed an EVF and mirrorless.

And BTW most mirrorless are wonderful hybrids and with distinct advantages that NO DSLRs will ever have, the 1DX MkIII included. Just the facts.

Use and enjoy your 1DX MkIII and be happy. Use it until it falls apart and you cant get any new parts to fix it. But it isn't even the preferred pro camera from Canon anymore. Most Canon pros are moving on to mirrorless.

You make your statements, but cant seem to take any disagreement, or any truth and reality that doesn't follow your pointed mindset.

I have no issue with whatever your experience as a published photographer is. I will take you at your word on that.
Just know that in the UHH forum tradition, everyone speaks their mind and shares their opinions and their experience.

So dont ever expect anyone with maybe more direct knowledge and experience with a specific subject or person like Jared, not to share that direct knowledge and real-world experience in the discussion.

Cheers and best to you all.

As someone that actually personally knows Fro from all my years in Philly as a staff photographer at the Philadelphia Inquirer Newspaper and as a regular customer of Allens Camera in suburban Levittown, Pa. (where Jared got his start) , if you really paid attention you would know that Jared uses a RECORDING monitor solely to record his EVF so that he can show us in his youtube videos what he is seeing through his EVF, like his framing, his settings, focus performance, tracking; and exposure ,color balance, and more (which cant be shown real time from an OVF) , Duh.

His monetized youtube channel is how he makes a portion of his income.

If and when he isn't recording for his youtube videos Jared doesn't use a monitor which adds weight and is more cumbersome. And Jared will tell you himself, and has said it many times in his videos that he would never return to an OVF after using the best EVFs with all their distinct advantages that he uses every time he shoots. Oh and BTW Jared may still own an older DSLR or three (he does), but he shoots 100 % mirrorless these days.

I get a laugh because almost every comment you make on any topic invariably has some final spin or comment to prop up your previous threads about why your DSLR "flagship" Canon 1DX Mk3 is the best thing going and superior to any mirrorless, LOL

Keep trying to make yourself feel better about your choices vs the rest of the world's move to mirrorless. As a longtime Canon 1DX shooter myself (Mk1 and Mk2) I do appreciate that the Mk3 is the best of them. But that will be the last of that line of DSLRs, as all makers' flagship cameras are now and will be mirrorless.

Use your favorite DSLRs until they fall apart and cant be repaired, and be happy, there is room for all of us.
But your statement that "mirrorless EVF isn't that big a deal' just shows your failure to face the facts and the new reality

I do agree that good glass and good image quality, PLUS the photographer's skill, experience, vision, hard work and a bit of luck at times ,all matter more than simply having a high megapixel count alone.

Cheers and best to you.

At 18 13/16 × 15 1/8 inches, and clearly PhotoShopped -- maybe with beta v0.01 software -- , Steichen was clearly using a camera of yesteryear, with a pixel resolution even lower than the initial versions of what became the DSLRinosaurs. Today's 24MP standard, even in cropped-sensor models, could deliver so much more.

https://arthur.io/art/edward-steichen/flatiron-building

As said earlier, the math is easy:

A good photograph has the most pixels.
A good photographer has a mirrorless camera.
A great photographer masters PhotoShop.

None of the above.
You might as well have stuck with your ad hominin attacks, your knowledge on this subject is trifling.

BTW, MINIMAL editing skills are needed to edit a raw photo. You act like using a raw editor is some sort of gargantuan task that's somehow more difficult than using a jpg editor. It's not, and the user interface is simpler than a full blown jpg editor.

The difficult part is not using the raw editor, but making the adjustment needed to get colors, tones and so on correct so they look as good or better than the original jpg. THAT can require significant artistic skills, and unlike in camera processed jpgs, which normally look really good in the hands of most any photographer with decent equipment, and can be improved to the extent needed with a jpg editor with no need for raw.

I could easily say right back to you that if YOU don't have the personal skills needed to successfully work with (or take) a
jpg image then perhaps jpg editing is the thing for you to learn to do...

I'd rather not say that though, but thought you could stand to hear your silliness said back to you.

Ahh, obvious case of confirmation bias.

Your arguments on the "UGLY" jpg standard are not supported by those using jpg compression format,
Just the fact about everyone into digital photography has been happily and successfully using the jpg standard for around the last 30 years alone proves your premises are faulty. The abundance of excellent photo's that started out life as jpg
images and successfully edited as a jpg are everywhere.

Your eyes are shut from some technical gobbledygook that few care about, instead people go by what they see, not what is written in some light physicists hand book.

Yeah, but you are potentially tossing out 3,999,984,000,000 TRILLION colors. How can you ever think tossing out 3,999,984,000,000 colors is reasonable? Yes, that's the same dumb ass argument made by you and the raw zealots about 8 bit vs 14 raw files. The answer is most of those 4 trillion color aren't there to begin with, and only 10 million can even be seen by the human eye. Occasionally, but not often it can make a difference. Proof of this is everywhere, billions of fantastic photo's all around you shot in the jpg and edited with jpg editors.

Most digital cameras do not have shutters; it's the DSLR that is the exception. And it has both a shutter and a mirror. It makes quite a racket. Mirrorless interchangable lens cameras (MILCs) have eliminated the mirror, and provide an option to eliminate the shutter. Older MILC cameras had slow sensor readouts, serious rolling shutter effects, and needed a mechanical shutter. Newer camera have faster sensor readouts, with less need for a mechanical shutter.

I shoot many shows, especially acoustic concerts, and primarily use MILC electronic shutter to avoid making noise. It is the noise pollution that is the problem, and yes, one day, we may see restrictions on the use of DSLRs due to the noise.

Electronic shutters can be fine for action. The Nikon Z9 uses only an electronic shutter, and it is one of, if not the best action camera on the market today. It will do things that none of my older cameras will even remotely do. For example I can shoot 12 mb images at 120 frames per second if I want for up to five seconds before buffering becomes an issue. Not even remotely possible with a mechanical shutter. I can also shoot 30 frames a second beginning up to one second prior to when I actually push the shutter button. Both examples are in jpeg only, so I seldom use them, but they can come in really handy for some applications.

In RAW the camera will shoot 20 frames per second for about four seconds, maybe five without buffering at 46 mb per shot. The electronic viewfinder was difficult for me to get used to, but the electronic shutter is not a problem. They are great for action.

All outcomes do NOT have to be jpgs. You can save in a lot of different formats, including PNG which is better than jpg but FEW ever bother because jpgs work quite well, and have since 1994.

When you edit a jpg, the editor loads the image into RAM, you can save that edit a million times and not loose a bit of quality, period. If you save the edit, then exit or remove the edit from the editor (RAM), then later go back and reopen the previously saved edited file, you may loose some quality BUT, that's what development files are for. If you save your edited file as say a PSD or AFPHOTO or ACDC development file, you lose nothing and save your edits for later use.