True, but so do other designs.
We have a phrase here. It's called re-inventing the wheel. If a design works, and you drop it for no other reason than another design also works, but isn't an improvement, you have re-invented the wheel, which is akin to spinning your tires.
Saying other designs also work is not a good case for changing a design, especially one that is ergonomically familiar.
Now, today's gripped SLRs that are massive are awful, but then again they are that way not because they are SLRs but because they are massive designs with grips, large batteries and incorporate every trick in the book.
They are what they are, and we can agree to disagree on whether they are massive or awful. There are advantages to size and weight. Small, lightweight cameras are not necessarily the best camera for every circumstance. I use Pentax, which I've found to be a good compromise between size, weight and performance, though the K3 is getting up there. It's a chunky camera.
The SLRs from Nikon, Canon and Pentax are somewhat trapped by the need for backwards compatibility with legacy glass. This is something the newcomers to the market don't have to worry about. Sony should be more concerned than they seem to be, they are using the old Minolta AF mount after all. I suspect they feel they are a big enough elephant that they can do what they like. I don't think Canon could get away with another lens mount abandonment, I don't think Nikon would try, and I'm pretty sure Pentax is good with what they are doing, which is compact, well built cameras and lenses.
Essentially the only difference between an SLR and a rangefinder is the position of the finder. But traditionally, rangefinders had their finders up top on accessory shoes. Or they were in a separate window. They were integrated into a central finder much later.
Well, there is more to it than that. There is the whole pentaprism thing to take into consideration.
A traditional SLR and traditional rangefinder use the same body, only the flange distance is different- and the hump. In fact, Nikon's first SLR, the F, was based off the SP rangefinder.
Except they were totally different animals. The flange distance of the SLR was some 10mm longer, etc, and IIRC, all the dimensions of the SP were smaller than the F. It's been a very long time since I have had both in the same room.
I say all this preferring the X-Pro to the a7r hands-down from an ergonomic perspective and a fun perspective. But that isn't because the a7r looks like an SLR; it is because it is poorly designed, with an interface both complicated and meandering.
Lots of unlabelled buttons, few direct, legible controls and on and on.
I'm not a big fan of Sony either, They seem to jump around a lot, which I find both confusing and disturbing.
I love the X-Pro 1 and I assume that if Fuji were to deliver an SLR-like design, they would be careful in the design and make something clear and easy to use. And I must admit, that with the SLR-like lenses in the X llineup, it should look perfectly at home. Currently, SLR-like lenses don't really look great on the X.
Apparently, you aren't familiar with Pentax lenses. They both look great on the X-Pro1, but work well also (at least the ones with aperture rings do). The Pentax 43mm LTD is a gorgeous lens on the Fuji.
The mirrorless camera fan people seem to be about the most rabid, with their gee whiz, look at what we have attitude. So far, i haven't seen a mirrorless that I would buy with the exception of the X-Pro1, which I bought because I wanted the very lovely 35/1.4. If the Fuji hadn't had an optical viewfinder, I would not have considered it, as I find EVF finders to be universally brutal and awful to use. I find that about 30 seconds into using an EVF, I'm getting a headache, and a minute or two after that, my last meal is trying to remove itself from me. Five minutes and I'm a mewling, puking kitten.
This is something that manufacturers really need to figure out. If they can't make a decent EVF, the whole mirrorless genre is pretty much doomed to being a niche market.
