One of my joys is shooting with the Canon EOS D30 and D60 (preceding the 30D and 60D). These were the first APS-C CMOS cameras that Canon made and were considered revolutionary. 
Most of my camera gear is legacy - in fact, one of my favourite cameras is the 2010 Canon EOS 60D.
So, I have always enjoyed older gear, however I am not suspicious of new technology, nor do I feel threatened by something I use being considered obsolete. I embrace the new tech as an engineer and I use it when I deem it is appropriate. As I have maintained, new tech can augment the skills of a competent photographer by benefitting from features for specific purposes - which, as a wildlife photographer, is very much impacted by focusing and eye tracking technologies with the newer R-series bodies. This is different from the classical Gear Acquisition Syndrome, where there is a belief that one's latent photographic genius will be released by the latest development in a product, or technology. Such practitioners are the ones that have every new model of every device they could use, yet still bemoan their shortcomings as major issues. Over 40+ years, I have used multiple brands of everything from point and shoot to fully manual medium format cameras. I have never felt constrained by the technology itself, but by my own ability to get the best out of what I have.
It is here that I shall dwell on the differences between features, benefits and value. I used to lecture on this for those working for large corporations in the context of technology.
A Feature is a characteristic of a device or services that is tied to the offering and as a group will serve a particular market, but has no connection to a specific user. In a way, it answers the question, what have your created.
A Benefit is a very personal characteristic that is tied to the type of activity, needs, constraints and aspirations of individuals. This could be paraphrased by the song 'Tell me what you want, what your really, really want?' Essentially it demonstrably improves performance, or removes a constraint to achieving that performance.
Value is achieved only when features can be matched to benefits. One example of this would be a camera that is capable of taking 4k video. That is a feature - it does that. The question is whether this is something that is needed or even wanted. If not, there is no value in that feature, and may be considered a detraction because of cost or complication. Such things may not be fully performance -tied. The value may be in terms of personal enjoyment.
For example, I purchased a Nikon Df camera. A stills-only camera that was the swansong of, and tribute to, Tetsuro Goto, head of Nikon Digital Imaging, just before his retirement. He created a high-performance FF DSLR that harkened back to the his very first SLRs that I used, through its interface of dials. Yet, it incorporated a top-end sensor and could, if so desired, be operated as a conventional DSLR, yet some of the characteristics that would be considered shortcomings today - single card slot, relatively few focus points, no built-in flash and no video were part of its charm for me. The benefit to me was the joy of returning to my roots, and the tactile pleasures of controlling the camera in a way that slowed one down and made taking a photo an event to be cherished in its own right. I still have and use the Df today. One can find similar features with the Fujifilm X-T series and I enjoy using them too, but they are not quite the Nikon I started my career with. Do I think it will make me a better photographer? Maybe, by slowing down, but it gives me pleasure in other ways, so yes - it has value.
