Originally posted by Ash but the only point I was making was ...<snip>... that it just looks more pleasant to see the scene as is and rely on skill to get the intended exposure/artistic effect right. I'm sure there's an argument against this
Well, the OVF does not really show the scene "as is" either - its luminosity will depend on the maximum aperture of the lens rather than on how the scene is actually lit.
Also, seeing the scene "as is" can be counter productive. It doesn't help at all with a dark scene, whereas an EVF/LCD can show a brighter scene that corresponds better to the recorded image and will help with framing and focusing. And if you want to estimate the DOF, the EVF/LCD will again do a better job than the OVF.
I could barely see this scene with my eyes, but I could bump the exposure and check the framing on the LCD screen:
40 second exposure:
Getting the defocused lights to have exactly the shape I wanted was trivial using an LCD for the following scene:
And then, of course, there is the benefit of being able to manually focus exactly where I want to, by zooming into the image and seeing more than the eye can see:
Then there's the ability to see things with an EVF that you would only notice after taking a shot if you were to depend on an OVF; these are the effect of compensating exposure and the areas that would be overexposed/underexposed.
The funny thing is that in practice, I forget that I am using an EVF - I am too focused on processing all the information that the camera makes available, to think that I might not be seeing the scene "as is".