An EVF does not show me reality, but just a copy of reality. Bryan from "The Digital Picture" put it this way: "The EVF properties just discussed can leave the photographer feeling somewhat disconnected from the moment, akin to watching a movie of an event vs. seeing it in-person as an OVF provides the sense of. ". That are exactly my thoughts. Next year I will visit the Olympics again (if they take place and allow spectators), but if I had a camera with an EVF, it would feel like sitting at home and watching the competition on TV. It is just a digital copy of reality. If I had an EVF, I could also take a video of the event with my camera and another person at another time could watch that video on the EVF. Then he would see exactly what I saw when I was there. I do not want to travel 9,000 kilometers to see a digital copy of reality.
Another problem I have with mirrorless cameras is that the sensor is always in use. While a DSLR only uses the sensor for a fraction of a second (unless I do a long exposure), the mirrorless camera might use the sensor for hours on some day. 99.9% of that usage time is just needed to compose the image. That seems quite a waste of "sensor time" for me and as well quite a waste of battery life. If I am on a journey, I walk through a city for many hours per day and my camera is always on. For my DSLR that is not a problem. I easily manage to take 2,000 photos with a single charge. I do not even own a second battery for my camera, as I never need 2,000 shots on a single day and a second battery would cost me $150 for my camera. If you buy an R5, you need a lot of spare batteries and some logistics to have them charged if you need them.
Some innovations of the past like autofocus brought big benefits without having any major downsides. With mirrorless cameras that is not the case. While I acknowledge the benefits of mirrorless cameras - like totally silent photos - seeing the subject with my own eyes instead of a digital copy of the subject is still a very basic requirement for me. My fear is that with a mirrorless camera I would lose the fun in photography.
Another thing I hate about the R5 and R6 is how small and light they are. You have to attach a battery grip to make them look like serious cameras. A heavy camera stabilizes the photo with its own weight. If I am attacked in a dark park, I want to knock out the attacker with my camera and the camera should still work after that. In 2013 I had the choice between the 1D X and the 5D Mark III. Those cameras had more or less the same specs. The 1D X had a higher burst rate and the 5D Mark III a slightly higher resolution. I opted for the 1D X just for its larger size and higher weight, even though it was much more expensive than the 5D Mark III. At 780 grams the R5 is much too light. I hope a heavy R1 will change that problem.
I do not understand why they gave the 45 megapixel R5 higher specs than the 20 megapixel R6. Canon says that the R5 is aimed at professionals and the R6 at amateurs. What is more "professional" about having more megapixels? The 1D series cameras always had quite a low megapixels count (except the discontnued 1Ds cameras). Canon simply can't cope with image noise very well and I don't think that has changed much with the R5 and R6. 45 megapixels are too many for a Canon camera, if Canon can't even handly the noise at 20 megapixels. That's why I would prefer a "professionel" lowe megapixel camera instead of an R6 that makes me appear like an amateur who just can't afford the R5.
I might only buy an R6 as a backup for difficult low light situations where I can't use a tripod. Eight stops of IBIS are very helpful there, but they should also be implemented in future DSLRs.
Why are mirrorless cameras called the "future"? Even my smartphone is mirrorless. Of course full frame mirrorless cameras are new, but they are just a larger version of an old idea,
