I am just pointing out to you that your narrow definition of an EVF was a much broader definition from film/TV since the 1980's. I worked in the film industry in the late 80's through to 1998 and a "viewfinder" was exactly like the link from Sony I demonstrated, eyepiece free, but often with a loupe, sometimes just a hood. A TTL viewfinder was the optical arrangement, like a Director's lens, and a small monitor or later, small LCD, was "the viewfinder".
So now we have the bizarre situation with still photography where the rear LCD "viewfinder" on an EVIL is sometimes paired with a non-SLR OVF as a kludge add-on, on a system called EVIL, with no (by your definition) EVF. I disagree, the common phrasing is not moving from EVIL to MILC or whatever. They're going EVIL all the way: Wired, Engadget, Gizmodo, and AP. It's done.
An LCD used to frame a video or still is a viewfinder on a continuum with an EVF. Other photographers appear to agree:
Digital Camera Viewfinders: OVF, EVF, LCD, SLR, DSLR, Optical, Electronic, Tunnel | NeoCamera.com
And Nikon has always called their Live View through the rear LCD a "viewfinder":
D3 | D3X - Reliability and Operability
Even dummies call it that:
Checking out a Digital Camera’s LCD Viewfinder - For Dummies
I agree that an EVF may technically mean a small, eyepiece-enahnced LCD, but in common use with EVIL and other acronyms expanding the usage, no. It appears the term is migrating out of ignorance to the video end of things.
My point has always been that the eyepiece EVF route may not be cost-effective when compared with an enlarged LCD rear "viewfinder" a la EVIL given that size appears to be a factor in the form, and it is clear the eyepiece option is getting the boot. The casualty here and in P&S land is the eyepiece. Once the mirror goes, so goes the eyepiece. The rear LCD is becoming the viewfinder, with zoom viewing (not lens zooming) replacing TTL optical acuity.
Which might make the rangefinder optical solution both cost-effective and more real for the creatively inclined and detail-oriented photographer (with the known limitations). Or the current mechanical solution. Not everyone wants a small form factor and the narrowly-defined EVF might be an expensive, compromised solution to a problem that is already solved by cost-effective mechanical and optical means. And if you want an LCD display, the rear LCD "viewfinder" is already always going to be right there (but only on Nikons, apparently).
Originally posted by falconeye In all due respect, may I kindly ask you a favour?
While you may technically be correct, please avoid the term EVF in conjunction with an eyepiece-free screen. AFAIK, you are the only one using the term "EVF" in this way on this (still photography) forum and IMHO it makes reading your posts a bit painful. And if you wonder, people move from EVIL to MILC or SLD to avoid "EV" in the same cases as well.
I leave the decision at your discretion. I am just forwarding the wish.
EDIT.
You may want to contribute to the corresponding Wikipedia article though (
Electronic viewfinder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In its current form, it would exclude a rear screen to be called EVF. They even write: "
A live preview on the LCD display (as distinct from an electronic viewfinder)". I see your point though as technically, a rear screen
is electronically showing a view of the framing. It's just that almost everybody else is misusing the term to mean something else, i.e., what Wikipedia currently publishes.