Originally posted by Ash Laurentiu, this thread is not titled aggressively.
Inviting discussions about "Pros
and cons" of
both EVFs and OVFs, it definitely isn't; and I can't understand how it could be seen this way.
I have nothing with people's liking of EVFs, I'm only defending my own preference (by pointing out there are reasons to want an OVF) and I want my company of choice to continue (and speed up, now that we're talking about Pentax Ricoh and not Hoya) developing the product lines I'm interested in. With a market exceeding several times that of MILCs (and much more so the EVF MILC market, since most of them are viewfinderless), I'm not worried that my choice will disappear anytime soon, nor that it would become a niche.
People liking EVFs already have multiple choices, why does it have to be Pentax? There is an obvious solution which would make all of us happy.
From a technical point of view, we made some good points favoring the OVFs and against some OVF perceived disadvantages, which again are not meant to persuade anyone to forget about EVFs. Some of our arguments were not-so-nicely rejected, some were down to individual workflows (e.g. using OVF in the dark with vs. without dark adaptation). No matter how strong the denial, there are still many reasons to like OVF better, even if their importance varies from person to person.
About higher than 24fps movie - 48 fps is only the beginning; there are talks about 60fps and even 120fps. Why is that? I found the motion blur on the 24fps Hobbit disturbing at times (our eyes don't have motion blur, do they?), and the 48fps version much better (IMAX vs. "normal", yes, I saw both versions), this was confirmed by others. Is our experience something to be ridiculed, like it was done?
On the old CRTs, a less than 80Hz refresh rate is definitely noticeable, by the way; even now, some people are complaining about PWM LED flickering. Having a miniature TV just centimeters away from your eyes can be tiring, for some people (others might have no issue). Some people are calling WYSIWYG something which IMHO is nothing like the end result. Why can't we accept that YMMV?
I do not think an EVF I would enjoy using would appear faster than 5 years. I'm only guesstrapolating, but it is difficult to improve all EVF basic characteristics; higher resolution requires higher bandwidth, low light refresh speed depends on the sensors (which are already incredibly efficient), there's no amazing display technology on the sight, to alleviate the "miniature TV few cm from your eye" feeling. In other words:
incremental improvements (which BTW are fine, if you already like current EVFs).
So, I see no point to assume dramatic EVF improvement which are nowhere to be seen, in this thread. We would compare real products with speculation and guessing, which isn't really fair.