Originally posted by IchabodCrane Agree about the ergonomics of MILCs. There's nothing that keeps them from being designed very well. About the EVF... the best ones still only display 1 to 2 MP which equates to a very modestly sized 1080P monitor (actually, about 84% width of a 1080P monitor). Compare that to 16 to 36 MP being recorded by the sensor and you quickly realize that you're not really seeing what you're getting. From a compositional standpoint, yes, absolutely it's good. Dynamic range of a sensor is around 13 EV, most of which is viewable through an OVF. Displayable dynamic range of an EVF? Significantly less than the 13 EVs the sensor can record.
I'm not against EVFs, either. One of my cameras has one.
What is the resolution that my eye can resolve over the area that the OVF of my APS-C camera has in my field of view? I suppose it won't be much higher... I know that I can't distinguish the dots on my smartphones 5" screen, unless I go really close and take off my glasses (otherwise focusing becomes an issue).
Basically: If I don't see dots in the viewfinder, and it looks sharp, then the resolution is enough. I don't need a 20 MP EVF viewfinder.
As for dynamic range... the dynamic range of an OVF is that of your eyes, and that is far beyond the 13 EV of the sensor can do. Basically your eye thinks "hey, it's fine", but the sensor can't manage it. An EVF should be closer to that, though at this point it may not have the 13 EV range (and it displays a processed version of the image, which limits the dynamic range). However it should be eventually technically possible to match the dynamic range of the sensor (OLED could be able to do that, it has a very high contrast and can produce very saturated images, the question is if the gradations in between are fine enough to give it 13 EV... and you can compress it a bit), and to display a video feed that has that dynamic range.