Mirrorless Cameras: False Panacea

I can see other reasons as well. For example the availability of (ultra)wide-angle tilt-shift lenses. I use my DSLRs most of the time, even though I use live view a lot and I do have a mirrorless system as well. Mirrorless simply does not currently provide the same results that are achievable with a competent DSLR system, or at least achieving those results is so much easier with a DSLR that the size/weight difference is a smaller consideration for me. But then, I do work out!

For eye-level viewing, I find even the best current electronic viewfinders a really poor experience compared to even mid-range optical viewfinders. This is a personal thing of course, but a good reason to give choices, rather than only one or the other.

And finally, compared to what landscape photographers have traditionally carried with them (4x5" & 8x10" view cameras with tripods to match, plus film holders, lens boards, etc.), a DSLR is still plenty small and light enough, if high quality is the goal.

It's really nice that mirrorless systems have become available and provide very good results for a lot of purposes in a smaller package. But it would be a shame if mirrorless systems were the only thing available to photo enthusiasts.