"ID USER" Cost is in the pocket of the beholder, it was about $100.00+. We buy what we can afford, I love Canon but, but, to me the difference was worth it. I also bought a 4.5 f stop over a 2.5 f stop to save a thousand bucks.
I shoot at high f stops (not birds etc.). That is what make us have so many different pictures.
Have fun

You don't need to buy a Canon adapter, they have no glass, it just adapts yor connection and carries your electronics. Cost difference is great.

Thanks for asking. I never thought of that. I got serious back in the early 1950's while being stationed in Libya. It was to record what was around me, I guess.
Now it seems to be the challenge to record what I see in a way that some one else will enjoy as will as help other photographers learn.

Thanks for asking. As I sad earlier I am all so going in May and got some good advice. I will take what I said on page 1.
PS I am taking my R 5 which is 40MP so I can crop.

I am going in May also. I plan to take my 24-240 and a 100-400 with a 2X extender. Giving me 24-800.

I use a 2X on that lens because the 2x give me more reach and less overlap (the same 140-400 with a 1.4 and you have 200-400 over lap with the 2X, aside from the longer reach). You do lose an f stop.

Look up MIKE MOATS, he teaches macro and has gone to normal lenses. He has free blogs.
Mike will use a cheep lens and camera in his classes as he feels you don't have the best to do macro.

If and when you do need to change one or both to a "R" camera they have adapters for the lenses you have. I went to the non Canon adapters and they work fine (about fifty bucks not hundreds). Yje adapter has no glass just adapts the different type of connections and carries the wires thru.

The space given in the camera by not having the prism and movement space has allowed the camera manufactures to do so many improvements in the camera that the total camera has taken a step forward. "CHG_CANON" has put it in his usual (fun) way.
It's not the change in the viewing system but, the opportunity to do many [mprovements.

The newer "mirrorless cameras" are not better because of being mirrorless but because of the overall new camera technology, some of it is because of the space in the camera without the mirror mechanism being removed. But, it is an overall up grade.

Before I donate I look them up. I found some popular ones have expensive employees ( in excess of 1/2 million dollars a year and some 4 people at that rate). On my list T 2 T is one of the best.

Next month I be an old geezer also, I'll be 92. Only difference is m6 is up side down

As I started serious photography way back in 1950's by taking slides, I had to take the picture perfectly, exposure, framed and proper speed. I still think of it that way, so I crop in my viewfinder. But, today with todays cameras and the pixels you can crop (I use a R 5 with 40MP) giving us a lot of opportunity to crop. So what I an trying to say both ways are now a choice.

Getting old Ain't Great, but look at the alternative.

Shutter speed is only one consideration and we have 2 other parts to the equation. You have brightness vs darkness, you have movement or non movement and then you have depth of field. We must play a balance. Start, is it
moving? That says is it a fast shot or can it be longer. How bright is it? That says we must balance the speed with the f stop or the ISO. And we must consider the ISO to balance our picture. We also need to know the depth-of-field to the picture want, not too much extra or too short to cover the subject you want.
It's a game and have fun!