It's a good article. I think the thing that confuses me the most about mirrorless advocates is how rabidly they seem to detest SLR's. How passionately they want to believe that "their" camera is the only possible option for all kinds of shooter and shooting. I see it with the anger that the 7D Mark II isn't mirrorless (fortunately it's not!) and any time an article comes out that praises the benefits that come from using a traditional SLR and an optical viewfinder. It's peculiar (and more than a little tiresome).
I don't dislike mirrorless cameras, even though I don't own one, at least not yet. I do think they are amazing creations, capable of taking on many roles that have long been the domain of SLR's. I like the innovation that companies like Fuji, Panasonic, Sony and Olympus have poured into making them better. But it's tedious when I read things that sound like there is almost a religious war to perpetuate the mirrorless camera as being the ONLY kind of ICL camera that should be made or used by anyone. Its just plain silly.
Traditional SLR's still have a whole host of benefits, especially for low-light and fast action, as there are still downsides to mirrorless. EVF lag is becoming less obtrusive but it's still present, especially under poor light. The resolution of EVF's is improving, but it still cannot match the clarity of a good pentaprism OVF. Mirrorless AF systems are improving, but they are still not up to the standard of a good SLR's phase detection AF. As a photographer who shoots birds and wildlife, the benefits of the SLR will continue to make it my 'go to' choice for action photography.
Another factor that is ostensibly in the favour of mirrorless cameras -- their smaller size and weight -- pretty much vanishes when using large telephoto lenses. Which is why mirrorless cameras that are attempts to compete with higher end SLR's are growing in size, negating their supposed size advantage!
All that being said, I do think mirrorless cameras are quite interesting. Great for low impact street photography and portraiture, as they're less intimidating to the subject. Awesome to be able to see the end result in the EVF, which requires live view to do in an SLR. Slick and beautiful little pieces of technology, and I can see why people love them so passionately. I just don't understand why their advocates take that passion as meaning mirrorless is the only option for every scenario?? Seems to me that the best camera is the one that is suited to the subject and shooting conditions. For some of those, it's mirrorless and for other's, it's the SLR.
What will it take to change the mind of SLR shooters that mirrorless is the best type of camera for all scenarios?
1. Lag so slight it's essentially non-existent compared to an OVF under virtually all shooting conditions. And this isn't something that will be illustrated with some showy short test--it will take extensive testing under many conditions to prove that concept.
2. Image so clear that the differences between the EVF and the OVF are imperceptible under all shooting conditions. Same caveat regarding the rigorousness of the testing to prove that concept.
3. AI Servo performance that can match the speed and accuracy of the best phase detection AF systems. Same rigorousness required for testing as mentioned above. NX15 is being touted as having a great AF system, but only time will tell how it really performs vis a vis the best AF systems in SLR's.
So there you have it. The next 10 years will bring improvements, but I'm not sure they will achieve the goals I've listed. The problem is, it seems many mirrorless advocates will continue to push their agenda (of making mirrorless the only option) forward even if these goals are not met--and that's just absurd.