Originally posted by Mistral75 There is an issue to even figure the depth of field between f/1.4 and f/2-2.8 with an OVF. At these apertures, the viewfinder shows a depth of field that is bigger than the actual one in your picture. And obtaining an adequate depth of field at these apertures (in the sense of getting what one wants) is definitely problematic as long as your intent is not to blur everything.
You can't really figure exactly deph of field neither on EVF without zooming and if possible focus peaking... And having very good eyes sight. On the opposite you can change the OVF to one that show the difference. You still need good eyes sight and might mess up with exposure sensor.
Anyway that not very important. What is important to understand is that EVF of OVF this is the same thing and this has mainly the same limitation.
Nobody care of the white balance => fix in post prod or whatever but when taking photos, you take photos not doing post prod.
Nobody care of color rendering etc for the same reason.
The deph of field you are not going to really see it without spending lot of time zooming etc anyway at best. focussing is really linked to that.
Exposure? That could be an argument. Still 99% of shots I can just use the camera exposure, set -0.3EV and post processing give all I need. While OVF do not really say to me the exposure of the final picture and EVF will simply not really show it and histogram will be based on JPEG, not raw. For the other 1% it can get covered with a braketed exposure shoot. Problem fixed.
In the end, there little real difference in term of actual features. I expect a good photographer to know anyway the apperture he want, where he should focus manually or with AF, the right exposure to use and so on. It not while shooting that you can really fix things except on a landscape with lot of time and then tripod+backscreen might not be that bad idea.
Will EVF replace DSLR? Likely because ultimately they'll become cheaper than OVF and provide also smaller bodies/lenses
Looking at what we have today it is only really true for m4/3 and APSC if you don't want a tele past 70-100mm. FF mirroless at least in Sony form cases seems to be dependant of slow appertures to get average sized optics or of an adapter to get truelly small FF lenses like FA77 or FA43 or even DFA100 macro.
That kind of funny Pentax is better at small lenses without relying on a mirroless design.