there is nothing chaotic in the mirrorless market. Definitely less so than in the artificially crippled, "marketing-differentiated" world of DSLRs. Batteries, Battery grips, external WFT-Wifi bricks ... all of them totally incompatible even within one manufacturers line of cameras! Canon offering 5 different APS-C mirror-slappers in parallel - 1200D, 100D, 700D, 70D, 7D/7D II at the same time .. Nikon running 3 different APS-C DSLRs, all with the same sensor in parallel and moving towards 5 different FF DSLRs in parallel- D610, D810, Df, D4s + one new rumored. And to make the mess even worse ... all of these grandfather-DSLRs "video-optimized", although mirrorless cams will always win the video game. Naturally. No mirror to be flapped out of lights' way all the time! :-)
Now where's the primordial ooze? The mess. The clunkiness. The mirror-slappin. Fat, greasy, old and heavy 19-century mechanical tech stuff? Looks rather like Jurassic Park to me. Soon to go extinct.
You speak as though a side needs to be taken, and that would imply you've missed my point. I'm not name-calling and pissing on mirrorless -- far from it. What I am saying is that it is a market in a very early stage and tiers/price points/styles of shooters are still being worked out.
DSLRs -- and thanks for bringing that up -- have violently clear feature sets that differentiate starter to upgrade to premium to pro to flagship. Are there too many price points? Yeah, probably. But do you know exactly why each higher line of camera commands a higher price?
You betcha. That lets shooters size up who they are and what features they need. Easy peasy. It's not better and it's not worse than mirrorless.
It's just a more mature market where consumers know where they stand and can opt in as best suits their budget, shooting style, and needs. (Hint: Canon and Nikon both play this arena really, really well, and they print money here as a result.)
Mirrorless, on the other hand, is still figuring out what people are willing to pay for and what matters most. It's not just sensor size (see my prior comments on point and shoot FF rigs and feature laden / pro-build m43 rigs). And until that is figured out, Canon and Nikon coming in strong wouldn't be driving the market, they would be stabbing at it in the dark
, and that's not either company's style.
Canon and Nikon seem to be content to have a basic offering to appease their enthusiasts (there are strong EOS-M devotees on this very forum, even though they admit it has flaws) while the market sorts itself out. When it becomes clear what everyone wants, both will make a hard call on sticking with their mount/sensor combo and producing a ton of new lenses for it [Cough: Canon], or scrapping it for a new one that is more built for the future [Cough: Nikon].
In a sense, Canon and Nikon are waiting this market out before they are so committed to a mount/sensor combo that they have to ride it out in a poor competitive position. That's pretty wise in my book.