>>3820182>People like to upgrade lenses.Meh I don't think so.
I think people don't like upgrading lenses unless it becomes really inconvenient to keep using their old lenses in new bodies, and then "magically" a new lens that's compatible with the new body comes up, and it's a bit better optically to sweeten the deal.
This is the reason behind the mirroless lens price hikes as well. They could easily release most of those, non-wide lenses, in dSLR mounts as well, and try to charge the same increased price for the better performance.
But very few people would pay for diminishing returns on that scale.
On mirrorless though, it was a great opportunity for manufacturers to upgrade their lenses because they could charge whatever, since people would buy it for convenience mostly, as native mounts always win that aspect. The better performance was to sweeten the deal.
But I agree with you, the pandora's box is opened.
SLRs was a compromise from the film days and early digital sensors. As were the RF designs before SLRs.
You can have an optical finder with a mirrorless, the design obviously allows for it. It'd be even cheaper than a rangefinder, cause you're skipping the whole RF mechanism. Just make a nice optical finder, with a digital overlay for various info (exposure settings, framelines, focus point, etc.). You could even make a zooming optical finder for better coverage with longer lenses.
It's doubtful that it would be a commercial success, but if someone is obsessed with great optical viewfinders, this is the way forward for best quality, size, and brightness, and not reverting to SLR prism finders.
