should the mirrorless has new body style?

With NEX-5N tilting LCD you can hold the camera at chest level and hold it firmly pressed against your body, for greater stability. Stop breathing, but cannot stop the heart beat, as that could possibly cause some camera shake, in this scenario. Being quiet camera, and your belly, nobody would even know that you take the picture...
Some day, they could have a built-in tripod, in the new body style, and that would be ultimate solution..:)

When humans evolve perhaps? :-)
When they discontinuie the EVF I will stop upgrading :-) I enjoy and use a full articulated LCD but for taking photos I normally use the EVF.

First I believe that most people prefer to use the LCD panel rather than the eye level viewfinder be it optical or EVF because they want to look at the LCD a distance

Chalk me up as NOT being one of them. Unless the camera comes with a useable eye-level viewfinder, I will not consider it. And the outstretched-arms stance is just plain ridiculous. I use a Sony DSC-R1 occasionally - and since it has a top-mounted LCD, I can use it exactly in the same fashion as an older medium-format camera. Still not nearly as stable as a camera held up to the eye....

All nice options but for shooting withhout a tripod I want a viewfinder, electronically or optically doesn't matter too much if it's a good one. Holding a camera at arms length does not give enough stability. At chest level? Will require a different layout of camera buttons. I only fear that EVIL bodies will be made too small, like Sony/Samsung. With a real tele lens I want a camera that I can hold, that offers stability. Not a tiny GSM. I think Pentax got it right and I hope Canon follows that example.

Unless the camera comes with a useable eye-level viewfinder, I will not consider it.

Same here

I rather like LCD focusing, largely because I wear glasses. I never use the camera at arms length. I'm right up on the LCD. The hood idea is a good one, BeBu, bu they already have hood solutions for the rear LCD.

1. Even though I don't have any MILC but I heard people complaining a lot about its viewfinder, especially the lag from it. Some people say it shows you only the past
2. I am afraid that to make the viewfinder showing a"live"view, the camera is also slowed down
3. Lately, I had some mirror less non-ILC without OVF and with a broken LCD so I practice and get mor and more familiar with shooting without a finder. Yes, why do I need a finder? I have watched many Western movies, in gun fighting, people just draw and shoot, there is no aiming at all. They dont raise their guns to the eye level
So I suggest the next step for a mirror less system to evolve to is a finder less, mirror less system. I strongly believe that would even make the camera simpler, smaller, lighter and cheaper and without losing any IQ
Another idea, the camera can be a little smarter and recognize that the framing should be higher, lower, to the left, or to the right. That will be shown easily by 4 leds

>>> should the mirrorless has new body style?

I have been saying that for at least eight years on this forum with respect to digital cameras; before they were called mirrorless. Speaking as a systems engineer and technologist...

It is even more true today as the underlying technologies have evolved so far. It's not that "mirrorless" cameras need a new body style. It's that the technologies have come together in such a way that there's no need for camera design to be strapped to film-based designs that go back to the early 1900s.

The notion that you have to hold LCD's out at exactly arms length is drawn up by film/dslr users that need to put down compact/mirrorless users or LCD viewing novices. Most cinematographers have been using LCD's viewing for years on digital. Fact is, you can place the LCD any where you prefer, even two or three inches from your eyes, at eye level *if one likes*. You can also hold it above or below, waistfinder style. Or a few inches to the left or to the right...

OVF is where you are stuck with it's placement ---right in front of your eye---:(