Originally posted by Pioneer If you honestly believe that EVF is better than OVF then it is quite obvious that you have never looked through a well built viewfinder. Believe me, what you are getting through most APS-C digital camera viewfinders don't even hold a candle to those that were available in most cameras several years ago.
But, if you are happy with EVF, do yourself a favor and do not look through an LX finder, or one from a Nikon FM2n. Even the viewfinder in the K1000 puts every EVF I have ever tried to shame. Never, never pick up a Pentax 645 or 6x7 and look through the viewfinders, they will swallow you up. Not to mention the finder in a Leica S. Whatever you do, please, never, never ever stare down into the gorgeous, three dimensional, 6x6 viewfinder in a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad.
Sorry, I am convinced, as you are, that EVFs will get better. But no matter how good they get they will still be tiny TV screens that can never equal the real thing. And yes, even light that has been reflected through several prisms and mirrors is still the real thing. The delay caused by those prisms and mirrors is nothing like the delay of the light being absorbed in a sensor, digitized, sent to a small tv screen and then reiterated on that screen so that you can see it again. Not too mention the changes that are made to that view to enhance things in a way that the computer believes you need. Not only is the camera now taking your picture for you, it is now telling you what you are seeing.
I don't believe that EVFs are better than OVFs right now. I do think that, for APS-C at least, they will be better. Not now. Maybe in a year. Maybe two or three or five. But the time will come.
Yes, I am aware of how good say a Nikon FM2n viewfinder is... that was my first serious camera. And yes, I miss that viewfinder, but as far as APS-C goes, a K-5 is as good as it gets. And unfortunately that is not very good. Even FF cameras can't be as good as a FM2, unless you drop the AF. Good luck convincing any product planner to do that, let alone customers. Bringing up an old 645 or Leica S etc. is completely besides the point, isn't it? I'll stick to APS-C, or at most FF, and OVFs are just not convincing, and they can't improve. They are as good as it is possible without dropping AF (or sacrificing AF performance).
The tiny TV screens... TVs now have 4K resolution. That's more than enough for me to stand in front of one, see almost nothing but TV screen and still be unable to see all the small pixels. Eventually that sort of resolution will make it's way into EVFs, though that may still take a while. Also, AFAIK EVFs already have bigger screens (at least it looks like that to the user) than even the best APS-C cameras.
The lag is down to something like 5 ms already in the fastest mirrorless camera on the market. According to reviewers that is pretty much instant.
What you see as a problem with EVFs I see as an advantage. You see what the sensor sees. The dynamic range the sensor sees (ideally... depends on the screen of course, and the processing). It should be possible to show an image that exactly represents what the raw file will contain... the question is if camera makers will create such a profile. You see the exposure that you have dialled in. There is no need to crimp anymore after a shot (I don't, and as a result I've enough photos because I forgot to change back a setting etc.), because even before the shot we can see if the image has fit into the dynamic range of the sensor, if we have exposed properly etc. So it's not so much a representation of the world as it is but a representation of what we will get. Isn't that great? OVFs are very misleading... with film that wasn't too much of a problem, because film has a higher dynamic range. But with sensors...