First, thanks to all of you for sticking to the subject and not adding snarky answers or non-problem-solving comments which would have wasted your and my time. You have shown me that despite what I all too frequently see on here, many of you are genuinely interested in helping others with good advice related to the topic question.
You all have given me a ton of info and answered questions that I had not even thought of asking. It is getting pretty difficult for me to not buy a new mirrorless. The only thing left before buying is to find someone who lives in my area (Toledo OH) that I can meet with and try their camera and discuss their experiences or rent one.
Thanks again for the excellent responses.
Toby

First, thanks to all of you for sticking to the subject and not adding snarky answers or non-problem-solving comments which would have wasted your and my time. You have shown me that despite what I all too frequently see on here, many of you are genuinely interested in helping others with good advice related to the topic question.
You all have given me a ton of info and answered questions that I had not even thought of asking. It is getting pretty difficult for me to not buy a new mirrorless. The only thing left before buying is to find someone who lives in my area (Toledo OH) that I can meet with and try their camera and discuss their experiences or rent one.
Thanks again for the excellent responses.
Toby

That's not quite what I said. Backing off your original statement that the EVF shows you EXACTLY what the sensor is capturing, you said it's a conservative readout of the sensor data. I replied, "It's inconsistently conservative over a wide range that can encompass more than 1/2 of the sensor's recording capacity." That could use some clarification but it is correct. Your revised point I think means to say that the EVF simulation when displaying a good JPEG without clipped highlights can be relied on to deliver a sensor exposure without clipped highlights. Yes, but my qualification to that is it's variable over a wide range and with some cameras when taking that exposure, leaving the sensor underutilized by more than 1/2 it's capacity (or not). It depends on the scene photographed because it depends on the JPEG processing.

Quick example I grabbed my Fuji X-T4 ran out back and took two photos of my wife's chives in bloom. The photos are below. The camera's exposure is good -- tad dark -- everything is set to default. The EVF showed me the camera JPEG you see below. I then exposed for the full capacity of the sensor regardless of the appearance of the EVF and processed my version of the photo you see below on the right. How conservative was the camera/EVF exposure compared to my full sensor capacity exposure? Way over 1/2 the sensor's capacity. The difference in exposure is 1.7 stops. With a higher contrast scene the discrepancy would be less -- as I said it's variably conservative. This behavior is camera specific. I have Canon, Fuji, Nikon and Leica mirrorless cameras and they don't all behave the same in terms of degree but all are variably conservative with the Fuji often exposing and failing to use 1/2 the sensor's capacity, the Canon doing so regularly, the Leica doing so occasionally and the Nikon doing so infrequently.

No, they (we) are saying that the EVF gives you a very good representation of what the image will look like.
The image is the image as it hits the sensor. But the EVF allows you to see pretty much how the image will look. A DSLR will not do that through the view finder. For instance, as you reduce the exposure compensation, the image in the EVF gets darker. (Yes, this feature can be turned off which I do, such as flash photography in dark environments. ) Do that on a DSLR and there is no change in the way the image looks to you. (The histogram and exposure settings do change.) So, it is a wysiwyg situation. For me, it helps me visualize and exposue the image the way I want.

Re sports, no one i know watches the screen or keeps their eye away from the view finder ...never seen it. Look at any sporting event where pros are shooting. Mirrorless has many benefits in rapidly changing situations...metering is metering so that is not really the issue. Mirrorless can have many more exposures per second than a mirror camera due to the limitations of flipping the mirror up and down. Mirrorless can have a mechanical shutter or an electronic shutter which is amazingly fast. Like 50 shots per second or something like that.

In my Olympus, the camera actually as a pro-capture which allows the user to start recording the scene BEFORE one wants to press the shutter. Those captures are on a loop so as the user keeps holding the button down, the older images get tossed as new ones are made. Then one can use those captures as the image. The system works quite well with birds in flight. Its downright freaky.

An example (for me) are moon shots. People on this forum consistently ask questions about it...most often about exposure. Using a mirrorless system, I was able to see the proper exposure through the evf, knowing that the shot was not gonig to be over exposed. Yes, we can pay attention to the histogram (and I do almost always) but it really helped me get it pretty close to correct in the camera. The viewfinder showed me exactly what I was going to get so I could adjust accordingly. In this case, this was handheld...no tripod. The IBIS in many mirrorless cameras is quite extraordinary.

Another example is when I took a photo of a six piece art installations on a walkway. I could envision them together and what the would look like if I stepped back and reduced exposure quite a bit..to make it look like a line of faces. With a dlsr, I would have to have chimped but not with the evf.

In spite of the ongoing rancor about mirrorless systems vs. dlsrs (a tired tired discussion IMO) mirrorless does offer up features that are helpful for me. Can someone get great shots with a dslr? Absolutely. As an amateur photog, the mirrorless helps me a little.

I generally like everything I hear about the new mirrorless cameras. One thing that bothers me, however, is the constant comments about the EFV and the ability to see the actual image before it is shot. I do not understand why it is different. Are you saying that the recorded image is simply electronic vs what you see in the view finder? Also, it seems to me that the EVF has no advantage in shooting rapidly changing scenes such as sports because you would need to hold the camera away from your eye to see the image. Am I missing something?
Thanks for input