Originally posted by Clavius Anvh, some people value the experience of looking through the OVF very highly. They use their cameras as binoculars. The fact that there's a camera attached to their VF is secondary to them.
All a VF has to do, is aid in composing, focussing, and mimic the output of the camera as closely as possible. The VF that does that the best should be leading.
Currenlty, the LCD display is much better for focussing fast glass. Better for focussing manual glass. Better for studio work. You can do video with the LCD, show compositional aids, histograms, zoom, peaking, etc etc... I actually don't know anybody that uses the OVF much. If these function are not going to be implemented in the VF, then I fear the VF will disappear all together.
There are obviously issues with both OVFs and EVFs. The issues with EVFs are primarily to do with eye strain, battery drain, inability to compose without turning the camera on, and lag. With the OVF, you can struggle in dark settings, has less ability to have electronic feed back (like histogram in viewfinder, focus peaking).
I do think that the idea that an EVF is a "truer" representation of your final image as compared to what you see in an OVF is not accurate. It is just different. Maybe if all you ever do is shoot jpegs, that would be true, but I shoot RAW and my experience is that there is plenty of dynamic range that is available that doesn't really show up in EVF or, LCD that you can actually see with an OVF.
In the end a viewfinder is a tool. A tool which should help you with composing your photos and achieving the final results you desire. I happen to prefer an OVF to all of the LCDs/EVFs I have used, but I am sure that over time, this will shift.