In reply to Adam Long:
> Don't get me wrong, the advantages of EVFs are clear to me and for extreme macro work, for instance, they're a revelation. For landscape and action photography - and climbing photography generally falls between these - for me EVFs are not there yet.
I find this interesting as I'm currently writing a piece for my university course on design innovation and this seems like a great example of disruptive innovation in progress, but not there yet. [apologies for factual inaccuracies and errors - I'm writing this with no research, off the top of my head]
The first digital compact cameras had terrible OVFs. DSLRs had classic SLR viewfinders so were vastly superior.
Then EVFs came along. At first they were terrible. Some people (early adopters and tech enthusiasts most likely) bought cameras with EVFs anyway because they had other good features. The mainstream camera manufacturers were wary of them (Nikon/Canon/Pentax etc.).
Then m4/3ds came out and EVFs were necessary and in some cases advantageous. Still Canon/Nikon etc. don't adopt them in the DSLRs. The mainstream accepts them - more because m4/3 (and equiv.) are more compact and "good enough" IQ.
That brings us to
now and to Sony (who has no legacy in film/DSLRs) who have pushed it right into the full-frame pro mirrorless "DSLR Replacement" market. Leica has followed suit, but Canon/Nikon/Pentax are lagging and might come to regret it.
Still not everyone is convinced that EVFs
quite match up to the performance of a good OVF. However, the rate of improvement is fast, unlike OVFs which have not really changed for years. As you said, it will not be long until it catches up and inevitably surpasses the OVF.
I full predict EVFs will totally wipe out DSLRs and OVFs and anything other than niche "classic" ranges. The mirror is an anachronism desperately holding on in its death throws.
Post edited at 16:31