A DSLR is simply older technology. Not sure we need to argue about it. One of the best of which and I think (not sure if it's actually still in production the Canon 1DX...?) But for good reason the production companies have stopped making DSLRs because they can do so much more without 'Mirrors'. Also my current 'Mirrorless' camera had an add-on 'Viewfinder', but I found myself quickly adapting to not ever using it. I was used to using the 'Viewfinder' from my DSLR days, but with the higher tech of the rear-display and even when manual focusing at 5x or 10x... I just find no need to use it.
Of course I'm sure it's already been mentioned that 'Mirrorless' numbers are just better in every way and can get better. The proposed Canon R5 Mark II coming out soon, I just drool over.

This isn't like moving from Records to CDs, and now LPs are experiencing a resurgence. Or a better example of those who love using their 'Film' cameras? What I'm saying is I don't think DSLR compares to that experience. Isn't the experience closer to the guy who simply upgrades his tablet or PC computer?

Holding onto the idea that your old-DSLR tech is good enough, and it may be for you. But take it for what it is. Old-tech. Some of us are very happy that the world has moved on.

I have a lot of pictures from my old DSLR camera. A Rebel SL1. But they don't compare to the resolution or quality I get from my Mirrorless. And I hope to upgrade again. I want that R5. Probably won't end up with Mark II though.

I totally agree with you. Don't need new technology to become a better photographer. Will never switch to a Mirror less camera. I can get fantastic shots with all my DSLR'S, And no EVF can match a live view through the lens. It's called talent and experience, I have honed my skills over the past 30+ years. And knowing the equipment you use inside and out. New Mirror less cameras just make it easier for less experienced photographers. I don't like the light cheesey feel of mirror less body's. I love the solid feel And Tank like quality and battery life of my D850s.

This is really getting old.
People should use whatever they choose to use and unless we are asked for our opinion, it is pretty much none of our business. Why should we even care why someone chooses to use a particular camera? Let alone the disparagement of someone else's choices.
If the camera you use, produces the results you want, it is adequate for the task. Period.

By the same token, if you choose to use a previous generation of camera technology, don't 'justify it' by suggesting that mirrorless technology is not better technology in many demonstrable ways, that point is beyond argument.
But use what you want and no 'justification ' is ever necessary.

The truth is, very few of us are "Camera Limited", if we are honest, most of us are skills or effort limited.... we have plenty of room to improve before the camera becomes a limiting factor. If a new feature becomes available ,...say.. Subject tracking, Eye tracking etc and it would be a game changer for the work we do, THEN we are closer to being camera limited. But it is still a personal choice.
Personally, I am still using cameras with mirrors. 2 Canon 5D IV's and a 1Ds III. Not because I think these are better than the latest available, but because I know how much better they are than ME. I do not use subject tracking etc, because the work I tend to do is SLOW. The latest generation of lenses I have are incredibly good. I can make any picture I want to make. Frankly , I am surprised by this, I thought I would have moved long ago, but I just have not felt the need or desire.
Another factor is age, my cameras seem to be gaining weight each year and a couple of R5's would not be significantly lighter with lenses attached.
But something else has changed, some of the best, most expressive photographs I have ever made have been made with my phone,---not by specific choice, but because it was ALWAYS there. That has changed me.
So it is increasingly likely that my next camera may be something like a Leica Q3.
I've spent a good part of my life in Photography as a pretty good Professional with Clients like IBM, Cutty Sark , lifestyle & drug Companies , Architectural work etc, But also as a pretty good Amateur with gallery representation.
Good Pictures are camera dependent only in so far as you need one.
Pictures can be objectively good, subjectively good, or neither, and all three can be important to us for various reasons. The reasons are always Ours.
So this recurring theme of Judging people by the camera they choose to use is shallow and a waste of time.
The world could really use a little less judging, especially among people who share an interest.
At its best , this place can be genuinely helpful and entertaining.
This is as close to a rant as I get. I do not mean it that way.
I really think we can do better, and it would be more fun.
...all the best

I just want to throw out one thing that has also been brought up before. Mirrorless cameras are quiet, suitable for auditoriums, press conferences, golf tournaments, wildlife photos etc. The quiet mode in DSLRs involves some compromise. You can't do it through a viewfinder if the mirror is up. Most DSLR's use contrast detection autofocus (slow) when the mirror is up, and their electronic shutters are particularly prone to rolling shutter. There ARE advantages to mirrorless cameras. People who think otherwise are delusional. There are good reasons to upgrade and good reasons not to upgrade. It depends on what you do with your cameras. It's as simple as that. This doesn't have to go on for 12 pages.

Learned quite a few things that are positive, but nothing so far that will change my opinion in the negative.

My main beef or issues are still:
- If you have issues with your vision, the digital display simply does not work, even using the electronic view finder.
- Weight unbalance, a major factor even if the camera is shooting as a higher rate.

As stated, I believe the sensor used are great, never disputed that; I even started with this part. Yet, the sensor and after sensor process leave many things to be desired compared to cell phones. This of course can be dealt with in post-processing.

Lastly, and a minor issue, at least for a few, is the cost of changing over. Anyone who has invested in decent equipment, specifically lenses' will find that using a required adaptor defeats some of the camera smaller size 'benefits'.

We need a permanent flyswatter in this type of threads, about a third of the posts are unnecessary, relatively offensive and plain nonsense. Personal attacks or comments are never justified.