Like it or not, mirrorless is the future. For one BIG reason, cost. An EVF cost less money for the camera companies to produce.
No, it doesn't. EVFs of good quality are actually quite expensive. RED sells their Bomb EVF for $3,200:
I've tested top-of-the-line consumer EVFs like those in the Sonys against the lowest-end OVFs from cameras like the Canon D1000 and the D1000 won easily in every way. To get an EVF that's even close to the quality and performance of the 7D or 5D, you're looking at upwards of a thousand dollars in manufacturing cost for the optics and microdisplay, and that's to say nothing of the dramatically larger battery you'll need to feed that energy-hungry system, and the dual processing pipelines you'll need to prevent processing time from causing viewfinder blackout.
Stop living in the past. Time and technology just keep on truckin'. Moore's Law is still in effect and working well.
BTW, the reason that motion picture equipment is so costly is simple ... they don't make much of it. If Sony made severl million Red Rockets the cost would go waaay down (ever hear of economy of scale ) Look at this way, if Canon made the 4Ti at Rrd Rocket volume, it would cost in the multi-thousands of dollars.
EVF's will never be as good as OVF's, at least, not in the next couple decades at least. With an optical viewfinder you get immediate, true real-time update of your scene, and you don't have any limitations on dynamic range. With an EVF, there will always be some lag, and dynamic range is limited to the bit depth of the screen (which in the case of even expensive EVF's right now, is only a few stops.)
I'll delay going to an electronic viewfinder as long as humanly possible. In my opinion, broadly moving to mirrorless and EVF is taking a huge step back from the quality and accuracy of an optical viewfinder. If I have the choice, I'll never do it. Ever. It's not about "living in the past"...EVF's just have limitations, always will even if they are minimized, and I don't want those limitations.