The image and link tools will now add images and links inline rather than in the bibliography format. While the latter will still work, you’ll have to create it manually.
First off: This doesn't quite work yet.
If you're going to allow manually adding a bibiliography format, please don't have switching editor modes mess with it (unless we're getting a different way to see a preview than the Rich Text editor :D)
Secondly, defaulting to inline links and images in Markdown breaks my workflow. I used the 'link' button a lot on longer posts with lots of links to research articles, as it would start a bibliography. The bibliography format made it easier to provide attribution, especially if I was reusing/quoting the same posts or articles multiple times in the same post. I could just type [text][number of link to reuse] and be done with it. While the syntax for inline links is easy to remember, it doesn't allow for this kind of reuse.
Another great benefit from the bibliography format in the 'old' editor, is that it adds images like this: [![enter image description here][1]][1]. It makes it much easier to hyperlink your image to another site, like this faq explains. Just change the second number, and put another entry in the bibliography list at the bottom of the post. The current editor inserts images using the  format, which gets messy quickly if you want to insert an extra hyperlink... it takes a lot more to memorize how to do that.
And, in long posts with lots of links, having them at the bottom of the post makes the work of potential editors a bit nicer, especially if the links used are long.
I'm not sure why this decision was made, but in my opinion it makes posts messier, not neater. I don't see many support questions on meta from people that are struggling with the bibliography format, so I don't think it's about 'ease of use'. And while the Rich Text editor is there for people that do struggle a bit with writing Markdown, that editor doesn't care how the links are written in Markdown, so those people will never have to know.
As such I'd like to ask you to reconsider defaulting to the inline links, for both links and images.
