Now wait a minute here. I gotta defend my R7 and its ancestors.
My first DSLR was an 80D. Got it as a toe tap into the hobby when I retired. I jumped all the way in and I run 5-series Canons now. But I've never not owned a crop body. First that 80D, then a 90D and now an R7.
I keep them mainly to drive my bird kit. I'm not very good with birds, but good enough to bring back shots most trips. I'm certainly not good enough to blame the camera when I don't.
But the other thing I use them for is exactly described in the original post. They drive my urban walking around kit. Something a little more discrete than a FF with fast lenses. For a camera, walking-around shots are a low-stress job. All the complaints I've heard are out at the margins. I'm throwing it f8-and-be-there tasks. I can make it focus. Never a problem.
I generally like the hi-res sensor. It gives you a lot of raw file to work with. It's not as good as a FF raw file, but I don't really expect that. I don't know the math behind it and maybe it's the photosites, or whatever. Maybe the next version will have a less-dense sensor that turns out FF-buttery files. I might pay to upgrade to that. But for what I use it for, the R7/90D raw files give me plenty to work with in post.
To the OP: I'm all mirrorless now, and I won't lie, it's all very nice. I spent a fortune switching over. That being said, I loved my 90D. We went to some fun places together and brought back some nice shots.
I would say, if the camera you're contemplating will be your last one for a while, go with the 90D. It will feel more familiar than a mirrorless menu system, all your lenses were built around its technology, bodies are cheap now and it will work fine for you for years to come.
If you're looking to get back into photography and curious about new technology and what it can provide, upgrading as you can afford it, then skip the DSLR. Mirrorless is the future.
I'm seriously contemplating an R10 as a body that's nearly rangefinder discrete. That will probably be my next purchase. I had a couple of M systems in the past. I liked the idea, but the technology just wasn't there yet. R10 looks promising. Battery life concerns me.
No issue with your experience. We all seek to get different things and use the cameras in different ways. As the saying goes there is a product for every market and a market for every product! The technical shortcomings I listed are factual and measurable, but that does not mean that is is not something that you or others may not want. I am describing the technical limitations of the unit, and clearly said that FOR ME the unit was not suitable, and gave some context for that comment. if it works for you, I think that is brilliant - if one camera was perfect for all there would likely be only one brand and one model, and that (frankly) would be a shame on many levels. I shoot predominantly wildlife with long lenses (as mentioned), but when I go walkabout in the city I will use a completely different kit - I still shoot with the venerable EOS M5's and some of those EF-M lenses: the kit is small, unobtrusive and it delivers what I want in that context.
My point is, technical limitations aside, how one
uses the gear will decide what works for each of us. I still shoot with a Canon EOS 400D or even the EOS D60 (released 2002) a 6MP monster that produces essentially noiseless results on its APS-C sensor and can use a lot of legacy EF lenses.
However, as regards the OP's situations. TBH, I would not recommend getting
any DSLR now though from the simple point of longevity and compatibility. The DSLR platform is on life support and the number of lenses and bodies available has decreased for the last couple of years. Perhaps more significantly, service of existing non-pro lenses is starting to be curtailed. My point here is that while the EF or EF-S will work fine on APS-C MILCs via the Canon EF-RF adapter, RF lenses are not able to be mounted on DSLRs and there absolutely no indication of converters from anyone. That means that should any gear fail, someone will be left with either a body or lenses for a dying market. Furthermore, the features of many MILCs offer a lot of user-friendly features not existent on DSLRs even if sone is not expecting to expand their kit - eye and face tracking being one and, for some bodies, IBIS being another. The bodies are also smaller and lighter - and so are many of the non high-end lenses, so that will make them easier to handle. For the APS-C R-series bodies there is an expanding range of native RF and RF-S lenses from both Canon and 3rd parties that will only continue to expand.
This situation of transition is not unique: it has been a historical fact for both the move from Canon F to EOS cameras and for other brands more recently - Nikon being the most recent.
In the end, it's all about the individual's situation, things to consider or express when seeking specifically-targeted advice.
0, If you are upgrading from existing gear,
specifically what is it that your gear does not do that constrains your intentions of performance?
1. What is the budget - stick within financial limits
2. What does one photograph - this gives a clue to both the sensor and optics involved. For a lot of people 'general purpose' might mean an appropriate walk-about moderate wide angle to moderate telephoto lens to start with as a base for developing their styles and then considering future applications. On the other hand, someone specifically looking to shoot fashion, or portraits will likely head in a different direction from one who photographs tiny insects. Also, does one shoot only still, only video or both?
3. Under what conditions does one shoot - there is a big difference from shooting sports indoors in dim light compared to field sports during the day - those difference scenarios will demand quite different focal lengths and aperture ranges.
4. What will one produce? This is one of the most critical questions that rarely gets asked; yet, in the end, the end product is what we are seeking. The demands for gear to shoot for social media, where the images are often modified and downsized by the web sites are quite different for someone intent on producing large, high-resolution Fine Art prints.
5. What is one prepared to carry? Different situations demand different gear. As we get older, or have physical constraints, we may need to go to smaller, lighter cameras, or someone doing multi-day hiking might want a tough camera, or a super-zoom bridge camera to offer super large focal ranges in a compact body.
6. What about the ergonomics and interface. Simply reading or watching reviews does not give one the tactile sense that handling a camera physically does, I have known several people who have bought purely off the web and found the interface in terms of buttons or menu to be frustrating.
7. What are the long-term intentions? For someone for whom the device is only a tool to record social events, their approach will be different from those who have long-term serious aspirations - for them the gear as a system needs to be considered. Changing brands can get expensive, despite what some of those on You Tube might suggest.