Originally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth People like to think that a EVF will help in this area but until manufactures allow the user to see what is being recorded in the raw file this preview really does not help the raw shooter use the sensor to the best of what the sensor can recordered or even how much one can raise the iso before clipping. We still run into the very same problem we have had from the start of raw output files, whenever we view or attempt to interpret what is collected in the raw file has already had WB, predetermined highlight headroom, and tonal curves and other processing being applied as if it was a jpeg image even when it has been shot as a raw file. This will vastly influence what we see in the EVF viewfinder and also the histogram to the point that if someone want to see how the image is being captured the user in the end has to use outside processes to determine how to best use the camera and how data is collected in the raw file.
This is another problem in that DOF is dependant on the final size of the outgoing image, so if you are using the DOF preview the only time you really know you have the correct amount of DOF is when you are viewing the image in camera at the final outgoing display size when you get it home.
If manufactures allowed the end user to see data contained within the raw file and simply used a built in AP that allowed the user to set the print size and showed a real time DOF scale using where the camera is focused, the F stop and the FL then we would have truly helpful aids in photography. But this is not something that would be inherent to ether EVF or OVF as most OVF now have LCD overlays in the viewfinder that can be customized to the users needs.
You might be surprised at the number of folks who shoot out of camera jpegs and do minimal post processing. For them, the EVF really is what you see is what you get.
I am on the other side of the fence. I'm often shooting under exposed to protect the highlights and in point of fact, in that situation, the EVF (if it really does show what the jpeg is going to look like) is actually going to make things more difficult as it will be darker than the scene. Beyond which, I am one of the unfortunate folks who gets headaches and eye strain when using EVFs for any length of time and so from a physical standpoint, I prefer OVFs.
I think for people who do much post processing you are exactly right. EVFs are no better than OVFs. It is going to be up the photographer to figure out how much to underexpose a particular scene and how much detail he thinks he can get from the shadows and if maybe the best thing would be to shoot a couple of different exposures to be on the safe side.
I'm sure EVFs are here to stay, I just think for photographers who do much post processing and don't shoot manual focus lenses, their benefits have been dramatically overstated by those who love them.