Originally posted by Clavius Really, the only thing the OVF is unbeatable at is the speed, which comes in very handy for sports photography.
Yet TV cameras have recorded sports for ages *without any OVF*. How did they do that?
Of course, there is too much processing going on in our digital still cameras with Live View, causing lag. But that problem can and will be solved soon (if it's not solved already). And isn't it true that most, if not all, TV and film makers use EVS's 99,99% of the time now that they've gone mainly digital?
It's good to know that I'm VERY old-fashioned with regards to cameras and lenses. But even I am not entirely convinced of the virtues of an OVF because of its inherent drawbacks (and there are many: they show things sharp which simply aren't in focus, they need to be calibrated with the AF assembly and the sensor/film plane, etc. Try focusing a f/1.2 lens with a current OVF!). Despite the drawbacks of EVF's (power consumption and low resolution being perfect examples) I think it's just a matter of years before the last DSLR with OVF will be discontinued. Unless... they find a way to make the OVF like it was in the 70's. Truth be told, the OVF's of my Pentax MX and LX put ANY current DSLR to shame with regards to their sheer size and focusability.
So, my opinion is simple. OVF's must take a few steps backwards, and EVF's a few steps forward. Then both systems can be a perfect choice depending on the intended usage/user.