The road of the march of technology is very much a downhill path. The farther it goes, the faster it goes. And we can discuss multiple disciplines, including photography, where we can readily see how fast the march gets going once the change begins.

What I see as different now is the difficulty in keeping older technology functional once we lose the support of the manufacturers. I found an old SRT101 while cleaning a room the other day. It's closing in on 40 years old. As long as I can buy the proper button cell and maybe find someone to clean and lube it, and find film for it, I could keep it in operation. But I have had to retire my Olympus OM -1N and OM-2N because someone has decided that the constant voltage mercury batteries that they require can no longer be legally manufactured. My OM-2S could still work for now, because it uses alkaline button cells which are still available. But the truth is that I no longer care about any of those 4 cameras.

So in many ways, we are not that much different from the newer generations that we fuss about. It's just that their choices are beginning to impact us, and it's scary.

So keep taking pictures. Just know that a time is coming when you are going to have to be contentwith the eequipment that you have, mirrorless or not. And do some advance planning on how you are going to keep everything operational and supplied with expendables.

I recently wrote this in another forum, and i think this is one of the reasons why of the decline in cameras sales.

"my 20 years old daughter is into photography. she knows I can give her any camera she wants with the lenses she wants (she already have an entry level Pentax SLR/lenses. for Xmas what did she asked for? a GoPro 7 with all the accessories (she got it). my other daughter's wish? the best cell phone for pictures, and she also can have any camera she wishes. None, and I mean NONE of their friends have a camera of any type. When I ask why, invariably they all say the same thing: they don't like the bulk of cameras; and more importantly, they need to share right away; which they can't do with cameras as easily as a cell phone, if that is possible at all."

NONE of that yada yada yada answers the question.
And acoarst YOU can never answer it. ONLY a person
who owned an "SLR without an optical viewer" could
EVER answer the question. We're dealing in unicorn
poop here, dontcha know ? "SLR without an optical
viewer". Hen's teeth. Got that ? OK. Cool.

EDIT ! EDIT ! STOP THE PRESSES !

Just deciphered an obtuse cryptic clarification [great
oxymoron there] From OlyGuy, the owner of the "SLR
without optical viewer". My Rosetta stone hints that it
might refer to early model SLRs lacking a pentaprism,
having only a folding hood on the focus screen.

The market for the serious amateur, hobbyist and professional is not going away. The major camera companies, Nikon and Cannon, should still be there however, maybe not so for the companies with less market share. The snapshot market is gone to the cell phone companies and will not be back. Some of the companies like Sigma and Tamron might not be around in 5 to 10 years. They might be eaten up by the big two or go out of business. The two main companies need to diversify their business to have different streams of income. Nikon makes a lot of money making medical equipment but that might not be enough. Sony is a big electronics manufacture so they may see an opportunity to acquire a company like say Nikon. Who knows. The only thing we do know is that change is in the future.

NONE of that yada yada yada answers the question.
And acoarst YOU can never answer it. ONLY a person
who owned an "SLR without an optical viewer" could
EVER answer the question. We're dealing in unicorn
poop here, dontcha know ? "SLR without an optical
viewer". Hen's teeth. Got that ? OK. Cool.

EDIT ! EDIT ! STOP THE PRESSES !

Just deciphered an obtuse cryptic clarification [great
oxymoron there] From OlyGuy, the owner of the "SLR
without optical viewer". My Rosetta stone hints that it
might refer to early model SLRs lacking a pentaprism,
having only a folding hood on the focus screen.

So how would you explain the more than 70% decline in global shipments of
digital still cameras between 2011 and 2017?

During this period, sales of smart phones grew substantially.
The trade press thinks the two facts are related, and I'm inclined to agree.

Camera manufactutres provide an upgrade path: from compact P&S to "bridge camera"
to high-end. But there is no upgrade path from an Apple iPhone to a digital camera.
Apple doesn't make cameras. And which digital camera will make phone calls?

Finally, there has been a change in the marketing of cameras from a focus on them as
cameras to a focus on them as "technology". From everything I've read about him,
Edward Weston didn't care a whit if his view camera had the very latest anything.
But digital cameras are now market more like personal computers.

The art world is very different: everybody understands that innovation in art isn't
about using the very latest paintbrush. And musicians are willing to pay a lot for
a 1956 or 1963 Stratocaster. And it's not just rarity: reissues of classic eletric guitars
are very popular.

Fender also makes Strats with active pickups--the latest electronics, offering reduced
hum, a better tone control and a volume control that doesn't change output impedence.
But most players prefer passive electronics--so Fender makes both.

I don't understand why photographers have bought into the techmology treadmill,
and are willing to accept a technology that is less capable (e.g., lower resolution)
just because it is more convenient.

If musicians cared only about convenience, then Casio would have put Steinway out of
business years ago, and Fender would now mostly be selling elecrtic ukeleles.
Fortunately, musicians care about how the music sounds. An instrument with a lot of
electronics is just as likely to sound bad as an acoustic instrument--perhaps more likely.

I suppose it's because people expect art and music to be difficult, but camera manufactuers
(beginning with Eastman Kodak) told the public that photography was easy and convenient.
(To it's credit, Kodak's photography books were much more realistic than its advertising slogans.)

"You press the button; we do the rest" -- when are people going to stop beleiving that?

The smart phone camera is just the next level. "You don't even need a camera to take pictures--
just use your phone!"

Someday people are going start looking at photographs again, and they are going to wake
up suddenly with a bad hangover. It was a great party, Apple and Samsung made a lot of money,
but now look at all the trash that's left behind! We've gone for 30 years with very few good prints,
and very few images that are going to survive.

Most of the digital images that have ever been taken have already been deleted or lost. But photographs
were stuck into albums and cherished for generations.

To steal a phrase from Marshall McLuhan: In the future, photographs will last for 15 minutes.