For YOUR photography this is probably true. But for mine which includes wildlife...then no...the RF mount's Af system is pretty much useless for fast moving birds and other animals.Mirrorless, particularly EOSR/XT3 was a breath of fresh air compared to DSLR due to lenses being inherently better, sharper, smaller, and faster due to reduced flange distance. You realize how unnecessary the mirror box is once you actually switch. (I'm a long time FF DSLR owner longer than likely most of you on here). Used to be a major snob. Switched and saw the light. (hah hah)
Also no lens adjustments needed as there's no separation between the focus system and what the imaging sensor sees. All lenses are 100% accurate all the time on all modern mirrorless. If there's ever a misfocus it's cause of subject or camera movement. So no more microadjustments. Used to go crazy adjusting all my lenses, some majorly off. Spent HOURS calibrating. With mirrorless, no more. The mirror box is just antiquated and a thing of the past. That gives real limitations and challenges to lens designers and makes lenses unnecessarily large.
Also save time photographing as less need to chimp. The exposure in the viewfinder is what you get.
Now with all that said, I find with my XT3 and now EOSR, I don't even USE the viewfinder. Why use a 1" box with I can use a 4" box (screen) to compose my images? I simply look at the back of the screen and see everything in high res. There's no reason not to shoot like this with how fast and modern new cameras are. The only way I'd use the viewfinder is shooting in bright light with glare on the screen, or to get a bit of stability braced up against my face.
Otherwise holding my eyeball to something and squinting my other eye feels antiquated, pretentious, and unnecessary most of the time.
Just my personal take on it after being a DSLR snob for over a decade. At some point, the system is going to force you to switch to mirrorless. Just a matter of time.
Don't get me wrong I know DSLR has its advantages. And I know all of them. But mirrorless is just the way photography is going.
An optical view finder has a truth about it that isn't there in EVF's. I think it's the slight delay, or the slight flicker...maybe the artificial look from the overly high contrast EVF. An optical view finder is easier on the eye and easier to see a composition in real time. I think the EVF kind of reminds me of using an VR head set...not quite real.
I also dislike the focus off the back LCD approach. But the major issue with the Rf system for me is that lack of high frame rate continuous tracking AF. Sure for static and low speed objects the software focus in the Rf system is excellent and in some respects more accurate than the system employed in the 1DX and 5D series. But once the object starts to need continuous tracking...all bets are off.
When I tried the Eos R I was a little over whelmed by the changes to the User Interface, to the point it felt so unfamiliar and almost like picking up a camera from a completely different brand. It's a disconnected feeling that I get if I pick up a Sony or a Nikon.
I really liked the lenses that I tried at Wex in Norwich. I didn't like the third control ring much...it felt like a needless gimmic. I also don't like the idea of using my 400 2.8 LIS with a 1.xTC and an EF to Rf adapter.
I think that once Canon have a more credible AF option for sports and wildlife shooters (both Rf Body and native lenses) but at the moment it's quite clear that the technology isn't there and may well never be. We may see both system having distinct advantages, EF for the more agile subjects and Rf for the slower more accurately focusing subjects.