I started photography in my early teens on my father’s Canon mirrorless ... err... rangefinder 35 mm camera. I dreamed of a DSLR and when the time came, I graduated to a proper DSLR, a Nikkormat, IIRC. Never had a non-DSLR camera until I dropped photography somehow.
I was typing this on my smartphone and pressed the "post " button before posting.. sorry
I can't see the advantages of a DSLR over a mirrorless. A DSLR has to have prism and a mirror. The mechanism to actuate the mirror is perforce delicate and cumbersome and a lot of thoughts should be given to reduce its vibrations. OTOH an electronic viewfinder "sees" and shows what the actual sensor sees at all time, no mechanical intervention required. Yet the resistance is strong, even manufacturers have made some form factor and design clues to the DSLR's.. For exemple the bump that DLSRs must have to house the prism .. There is no need for this, simply wire the sensor to the viewfinder through of course some electronics but you get the point. In my estimation , mirrorless will present better performances than DSLR in a few years if they aren't today. Think about it this way. Any DSLR worth their "Pro" or "advanced" monikers ... must have a mirror lockup feature. Video even requires that the mirror be locked. Mirrorless cameras have no mirror and no vibration-creating mechanism. aside from perhaps the shutter. They're the future of photography. DLSR will slowly vanish.
Once the pros and the staunchest of all, the amateurs with Pro pretensions, who like to be called "Prosumers" , some of them are indeed good photographers but a substantial number of those people, are equipment fetishist, similar in that to many audiophiles. They have tens of thousands of dollars in lenses, bodies and accessories ... just like the audiophiles with... their shrine ... Once it's clearly perceived that the mirrorless are superior, I believe we may not see DSLR any more ...