Angela, I do not consider myself a DSLR diehard. I realise some of the advantages of mirror less. If I live long enough and if my preferred manufacture pulls its finger out, then I might well go mirror less. I use a brace of Nikon D500 and a combination of DX and full frame lenses. I don't like fiddling with cameras so only use continuous AF (MF is disabled by a menu selection). AF is started by the back AF button or the front function button. Using the front function button allows me to start AF with a different mode (Group in my standard setting file). Nikon only provide that functionality on three cameras and they are DSLRs. The Z50 comes nowhere near the capability of the D500. I don't mind going to full frame provided I have the same pixel pitch as the D500. The Z7ii should be my choice but the interface is seriously disabled compared to the D6, D850,D500 interface. If I wanted to upgrade then the only place to go is presently the D850. Given that I have several very valued Nikon lenses I am not going to buy Sony or Canon. Given that Nikon have crippled the human interface of their mirror less offerings I intend sticking with my present equipment. If I lost a D500 then the replacement would be another D500 or maybe a D850. Please note that the problems of the mirror less are not that they are mirror less but Nikon have messed up the human interface. For me, going mirror less, would cost the best part of £10k minus the trade in value of my DSLRs. For that expenditure I would get a worse photographic experience. I am not criticising the article which I enjoyed, I'm just giving another perspective on why a photographer might stay with DSLR.