Originally posted by falconeye Only because -- of course -- slrs, by definition, have no EVF. You argue by using a logic tautology.
I didn't actually mean to argue at all, just to point out that people frequently use cameras without the evf as serious camcorders. I see now that the emphasis on your statement was on the word "wants."
It's not ideal, of course, but it is also not exclusive to SLR shooting. I rented a RED for a project a few weeks ago, and the rental house didn't offer a package with an EVF that fit within the project's budget. They did have a package with a monitor, though, so we operated the entire shoot using the monitor rather than the evf. It's also quite common to operate motion picture film cameras using a monitor rather than a viewfinder. I've seen this with both 16mm and 35mm shoots.
On most of these film projects, though, monitors weren't used exclusively. There were usually some shots for which, because of ergonomics, the operators preferred to use the optical viewfinder.
EVF technology is an interesting topic, though. I don't know anything about the technological side of things. I was on a shoot with the Arri Alexa recently, which has an EVF. While we were testing the lenses, both of the assistants who were looking through the eyepiece complained that the EVF was not sharp enough for them to be able to judge fine focus. We looked this up, and it was a pretty standard complaint for the Alexa's first iteration. I have been told that they have updated the EVF to address this problem.
Their next camera, the Alexa Studio, will actually feature an optical viewfinder, and a reflex mirror.