I guess my fixation with modern aircraft is reliability, fuel economy and safety. Every I time I pick up an aviation magazine whether UK or US, there is always a monthly section detailing incidents and it kind of puts me off! Yes they are great articles for learning from others mistakes but you wouldn't pick up Auto Express and read half a dozen pages of accident reports each month. I often wonder how safe private flying really is compared to car travel and to be honest, these incident reports kind of put me off
Look at the causes of the accidents. How often was the vintage of the plane, or it's airworthiness even a factor in the accident? (Not often, I can assure you).
Buying a "new" plane does not insulate you from difficulty. A well maintained "legacy" aircraft will be every bit as safe and reliable, when similarly equipped. In fairness, I am not a fan of airframe parachutes, and am less inclined toward composite airframes, though they have their good points.
I have the opinion that airframe parachutes create a false sense of security for less experienced pilots. Many accidents, and more of the fatal ones occur in conditions which are not optimum for parachute deployment. But, that's a different (and passionate) discussion. From my perspective, I have more than 7000 hours in more than 250 GA aircraft of 80 types, and have never wished for a moment that the aircraft I was flying had an airframe parachute (and I've had four engine failures in flight - but you did not want to know that).
Find a modest airplane for a start, I'm partial to the 172/182 for this purpose. The PA-28 series are fine aircraft too. They are good, 'cause every instructor can fly one, and train you in it. Their characteristics are understood, and maintenance is commonly available. There is lots of none OEM support, and parts, so you are not held captive by the OEM. New types hove not created a large enough market for themselves to inspire a lot aftermarket support. That can translate to less choice (more cost) to you. Aside from new flash, they don't offer much that a legacy aircraft can't do for less. And, cost to insure - higher premiums for higher hull value.
It's true that a Cirrus or Mirage will be very well suited to a long cross country across Europe, but that does not exclude a more modest aircraft either. A friend and I flew his C 182 amphibian from Bergen to Dubrovnik and back last July no problem. But realistically, it'll be a while before you're venturing such trips, so grow with it.
I bought my first aircraft (a C 150) 30 years ago. I still own it. The next two aircraft I bought are both slower, on more power, but excellent for a long distance trip - if you're patient! I just bought a 1959 C 172, for restoration. I'm not contemplating any composite aircraft, nor parachute systems.
Learn the basics well, and in a modest aircraft. Learn to fly more with less. As you need, move up in equipment, that way you'll know
why you did!