Quote:I disagree with AF tracking being the only plus. Ergonomics, including an OVF which shows you the world instead of camera settings, a good grip among other things. Then there is the idea that DSLRs struggle with AF accuracy.... That may be true for some cameras like the D800/D600 (according to user reports) and my 350D way back when, but I have no complaints at all with my 6D.
Foto Magazin's AF test show different too, with the EOS 70D outperforming mirrorless in its PD AF accuracy.
Ergonomics are very subjective.
The two cameras with the best ergonomics I've ever used were the Pentax K5 and Olympus E-M1. The way the Pentax operated was amazing. I know some people tend to like large cameras, but I don't. It's very personal. Did you handle an E-M1 ? The grip is perfect IMO, better than any DSLR I've ever used.
As far as AF goes AF inaccuracy is inherent to the technology used in DSLRs, except if the AF sensor is on the imaging sensor. All the DSLRs I have used suffered from some inaccuracy (I didn't try a Canon 6D, but the technology does still suffer from the same limitations).
The fact mirrorless works on the final image is extremely more powerful and flexible. The whole mirror mechanism in a DSLR is a major limitation, you really can't argue with this simple fact.
Now, regarding OVF vs EVF. Again, it's personal. I consider it to be an advantage. You actually see what you're going to capture. I don't care if it's not exactly what my eyes see. What I want to know is what my camera sees, so I can adjust the exposure accordingly! Furthermore, anything can be added to the EVF as it's just a matter of implementing it in software. This is not the case with OVF which is why the info in it is extremely archaic and limited.
DSLRs have just way too many shortcomings. They are greatly limited by the legacy of the mirror. In other words, they are technology limited. This doesn't even include the cost issue related to manufacturing, alignment, tolerances, etc. of the whole mirror AF mechanism.