Originally posted by Kunzite
Oh, yeah; another of those analogies. It doesn't matter that we switched to digital, which shows we're not opposed to technology - when it properly works. It's irrelevant that the digital have clear benefits over film, its immediacy and control, while electronic viewfinders merely tries to emulate the functions of the optical ones.
Of people who used to use film, there has been a
massive spread in the speed and enthusiasm of their switch to digital. Some were earlier adopters, while some still haven't switched. Some jumped right in, while others adopted digital bit by bit over years. I assume some switched brands to switch to digital, while others were carried along by their chosen brand. (For example, I know a dedicated Leica user who switched when Leica switched).
Many people who were late adopters, or haven't switched at all, didn't agree that
on balance there were clear benefits with digital. They could perhaps recognise some advantages, but for them the disadvantages
were more important, and sometimes still
are. I think the EVF versus OVF positions are just like that, and will continue to be.
(I don't know whether the people who are moving upwards from mobile phone or point & shoot photography to something better will be more likely to be happy with EVFs rather than OVFs. They are less likely to continually make comparisons between the two. Has that survey been done?)
EVFs have the chance of going beyond the objective "to emulate the functions of the optical ones". They can add extra functionality, and/or they can remove some of the disadvantages of OVFs. (Size, weight, vibration, noise, frame rate - these matter to some people, although not to all).