I've owned just about every Canon digital camera ever made, but just never found any real pleasure in using them. It's not that they weren't great cameras. It was with each one I found less satisfaction in photography.
It was no longer me creating the image, but the camera doing all the work.
I've gone back to film. The not having instant gratification of knowing if I got the shot and having to wait till I processed the film and made a print has brought back the fun I had when I first started in photography sixty years ago with a Kodak Brown and Kodak Tri-chem packs processed in an old coal bin and printed in a print frame has returned, but now I have a dark room and enlarger that I've brought out of storage.
Photography is fun again. I guess it's a sign of senility - but who cares.

It was mainly a marketing ploy by a third party lens manufacture to persuade the public that their lenses are good lenses and not produced by purchasing their finished lenses from another company, you see, this third party lens manufacture does not manufacture their own glass, they buy it from the lowest bidder and and then they put them into their lenses. The ART lenses are there better line of third party glass they hope to sell to you. They believe by putting the ART before the lens it will prove to the public that the lens is as good or better than a Sony, Nikon, Canon, or even a Fuji lenses.
Don't be fooled by this ploy, the ART lens is still contain third party glass built by the lowest bidder.
Ride with the brand or be left behind.
Brand lenses cost more, but they last longer, stay sharper over their life, and are worth much more at selling or trading in time. Plus Brand lenses are specifically designed to work with your camera brand, they are not manufactured to work with multiple camera brands like this third party lens manufacture.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
You can write rebuttals to this post until you are blue in the face but facts are facts, third party lens manufactures buy their glass from the lowest bidder.

Some where I read that he once speculated about digital photography in the future once the quality went up and the size of the gear went down(first digital image was in the early 50's and involved huge machines and computers). The first "digital camera" prototype from Kodak in 1975 was the size of a desktop printer and weighed almost 9 lbs. It did B&W only and needed a special computer and screen to see the images. The first commercial digital camera from Fuji was released in 1989, five years after AA passed.

Newly here but amateur enthusiast have a Nikon FG which is a wonderful camera but film is getting harder to find. Love to shoot B/W again film supply is dwindling. Interested in switching to digital and would like something comparable with the FG as far as capabilities but know very little about digital cameras. What are comparable digital cameras that don’t suck the wallet dry. I’m disabled but can still get out and enjoy the hobby. Advice is appreciated on selecting a digital array of equipment, something comparable to an F1.8, 70-210 zoom and 28 or so wide angle are what I currently have. Have two flash units Vivitar 283 and a Sunpack. Any advice appreciated. Thanks in advance