I definately think Mirrorless is where we are going, but the "when" is a bit harder to predict. The Sony bodies are almost there (apart from AF, which is getting closer), but they don't have the lenses there for pros to switch....yet. Once the 2.8 zooms start rolling out and the AF has caught up there'd be little reason to stay with a DSLR. Remember mirrorless bodies can be shaped into anything, and to be able to have a single system with large bodies for pro work, but small bodies and pancakes for fun is an exciting prospect.
Exciting times ahead!
BeaverTerror: Mirrorless is the official term now? So instead of choosing a term which describes the camera, they have moronically chosen a term describing what the camera does not have. One day DSLRS will be a nostalgic memory and we will still be stuck with "mirrorless". Same situation as clipless bicycle pedals.
It is safe to say G1Houston killed this argument with "wireless".
mediasorcerer: So the a6000 is 1 mark less than the nx1 @ dxo, 82 v 83.And its 1/3 the price. And smaller and lighter.a7r blows the samsung away [95v83] and its 2- 300$ more, hmmm.Too overpriced for nx1- no wonder its not selling very well.The lenses for nx-1 are Huge too.for the same price as nx1 and lens, you can have sony ff a7/r and lens.Or body only either one give or take 100 odd dollars.hmmmm.If you own an a6000 you got value for money, not so much with nx1 though.Highly overpriced.
Well I suppose numbers are a useful guide but they aren't everything, and of course this is only the sensor.
Im sure you don't need me to explain why the Nx1 costs more than the a6000, and you know full well that the DXO scores are sensor based only. It is the same reason the original 7D cost much more than the 550D even though the had the same sensor. If your argument holds, then every manufacturer is "overpricing" their top of the line APSCs.
Not to mention the a6000 and a7r have both been out much longer than the NX1 and have therefore received a higher fall in price due to this.