[Ash]

I get your points also, however:

I just don't know of any really good arguments against it (other than : manufacture/possibility of failure, etc -- stuff you can say about any feature).

answers your own argument and is enough for me.

I'm not an EVF fan, and although mirrorless cameras have their place and niche market, I won't be entertaining the technology, no matter how good it becomes. Nothing to me is as good as real-time pure optical view. But, how about a binocular optical viewfinder?!?

[D0n]

..... I won't be entertaining the technology, no matter how good it becomes. Nothing to me is as good as real-time pure optical view. But, how about a binocular optical viewfinder?!?

you probably said the same thing about interchangable lenses, pentaprisms and mirrors, ae, af, motorwinder, and flush toilets... I dunno... how old are you? the elderly (or near dead, as I like to call them) are always afraid of advances, and new technologies! lol!

[IchabodCrane]

I get your points also, however: answers your own argument and is enough for me.

I'm not an EVF fan, and although mirrorless cameras have their place and niche market, I won't be entertaining the technology, no matter how good it becomes. Nothing to me is as good as real-time pure optical view. But, how about a binocular optical viewfinder?!?

I'm not a fan of EVFs, either, which is one reason why I have a Pentax. However, to say "never" is like saying I won't use night-vision binoculars (which are EVFs) to see at night no matter how dark it gets.

The results are what matter, not the means. For now, I agree that OVFs overall are better but that's "now".

[Caat]

I'm not a fan of EVFs, either, which is one reason why I have a Pentax. However, to say "never" is like saying I won't use night-vision binoculars (which are EVFs) to see at night no matter how dark it gets.

The results are what matter, not the means. For now, I agree that OVFs overall are better but that's "now".

True for some (many) perhaps. However for me it's more about the qualities of an OVF and not so much about it being "better" than an EVF from any particular technical standpoint.

I like to see through my VF what I see with my eyes - I don't care that neither represent what the sensor will capture. I accept that the sensor is not a human eye and I tend to process my images to be as much as I really see as possible. I worry that an EVF would be too representative of what the sensor will capture. For some that is an advantage but for me that's not what photography is about. I would also worry that an EVF would start to affect how I see the world photographically making it more mechanical. If that makes sense. The sensor isn't really a more accurate view of the world that my own eye anyway.

It's more an artistic or aesthetic argument than a technical photographic one I guess.

[Ash]

you probably said the same thing about interchangable lenses, pentaprisms and mirrors, ae, af, motorwinder, and flush toilets... I dunno... how old are you? the elderly (or near dead, as I like to call them) are always afraid of advances, and new technologies! lol!

In my mid-30s. And what does all this have to do with moving with the times?!?

Ok, I'll just stick with my archaic K-5, FA Ltds, quad core i7 and enjoy the craft the way I like it.

[Ash]

I'm not a fan of EVFs, either, which is one reason why I have a Pentax. However, to say "never" is like saying I won't use night-vision binoculars (which are EVFs) to see at night no matter how dark it gets.

The results are what matter, not the means. For now, I agree that OVFs overall are better but that's "now".

You might be right, even in my case. But if I had a choice between EVF and OVF, I'd go with OVF. Night long exposures may be a useful application of night vision EVF, but I've composed my shots pretty well without that capability so far...

I dunno. I might just like an element of purism in terms of visual fidelity when it comes to shooting, especially fast action photography (even weddings).

[Ash]

I like to see through my VF what I see with my eyes - I don't care that neither represent what the sensor will capture. I accept that the sensor is not a human eye and I tend to process my images to be as much as I really see as possible. I worry that an EVF would be too representative of what the sensor will capture. For some that is an advantage but for me that's not what photography is about. I would also worry that an EVF would start to affect how I see the world photographically making it more mechanical. If that makes sense. The sensor isn't really a more accurate view of the world that my own eye anyway.

It's more an artistic or aesthetic argument than a technical photographic one I guess.

Agreed. And thanks for expressing it in a way I couldn't.

[D0n]

In my mid-30s. How old are you? What's your sexual orientation? And what does all this have to do with moving with the times?!?

Ok, I'll just stick with my archaic K-5, FA Ltds, quad core i7 and enjoy the craft the way I like it.

hehehehe! ya know I'm kiddin right?

[Ash]

Now I do. No hard feelings.

Thanks mate.

[7samurai]

For a second there, i though this full frame thread was going to be closed early and not hit the required 135 pages. glad to see we're all still comrades.

[gazonk]

I like to see through my VF what I see with my eyes

But an OVF is also not exactly what you see with your eyes, after all it's a projected image on the matte focusing screen. I imagine that at some point in the future, EVFs will be so good and will give you the option to show a picture so close to reality that it doesn't really matter any more.

[Kunzite]

That's not an argument in favor of current and next year's EVFs, though - saying that at some point in the future they could, maybe, give us what OVFs are giving now.
EVF fans should realize that for some applications, the old, tried solutions are the best; I'm using a mirror to shave (and not a CCTV), I'm typing using a keyboard (not a touch screen) and I'd use an old school hammer to drive nails into some piece of wood.

[WPRESTO]

An EVF is no more "unnatural" than using the upside-down, backwards ground glass of a view camera, which many previous generation purists claimed tended to improve composition by forcing you to see objects, shapes, tones and their arrangement. Perhaps that's why Thoreau liked to look at the world by bending over and looking back between his legs.

[civiletti]

True for some (many) perhaps. However for me it's more about the qualities of an OVF and not so much about it being "better" than an EVF from any particular technical standpoint.

I like to see through my VF what I see with my eyes - I don't care that neither represent what the sensor will capture. I accept that the sensor is not a human eye and I tend to process my images to be as much as I really see as possible. I worry that an EVF would be too representative of what the sensor will capture. For some that is an advantage but for me that's not what photography is about. I would also worry that an EVF would start to affect how I see the world photographically making it more mechanical. If that makes sense. The sensor isn't really a more accurate view of the world that my own eye anyway.

It's more an artistic or aesthetic argument than a technical photographic one I guess.

Why not just look at things and forgo the photography?

[gazonk]

Why not just look at things and forgo the photography?

Now you made me think of kim jong-un looking at things