DSLRs are the remnants of the past...

[victoraberdeen]

I think that they have a much higher profit margin on their pro-line cameras then on the prosumer line.

You think, but with out any information. Go do the research and then tell us the facts of camera production.

Also, you should study the purpose of the viewfinder, a professional photographer is producing photos for a purpose, for a fee. No guessing, just the requirment to know that the the picture is what was intended for the client. You'll have to provide a better reason to change to EVF than just your opinion if I'm going to bet the business on it!

[SurfKid]

Well SurfKid, I have used a P&S POS camera; I had a Kodak DC4800 for 2 years before purchasing the 1Ds.

Sorry Jonathan the DC4800 does not have an Electronic ViewFinder, only an optical one and an LCD panel on the back. You look 'through' it via an eyepiece. It is useable even in bright sunlight. Unfortunately its resolution is very bad as yet. E.g. the EVF of my Coolpix 5700 has only 180000 pixels (I think it is roughly 480*375) But it can be 'calibrated' (sort of), zoomed in after a shot is made (the Sony DSC717 has a focusing helper zoom: when you focus the image is magnified 2x ) and in low light it keeps the image bright (at least for not very low light levels, the 717 has an IR mode so with its EVF you can see in the dark)

[SurfKid]

Really ? And I was hardly trying.

That was very kind of you drm... (By the way, what a good serious alias do you have, much better than mine!)  And I do not want to be personal like you so I say only this: If your kind of discussion mostly consists of insults aimed at me then I am glad that you "got more constructive things to do ".

Just to make things clear: I do not question that today there is no alternative to the (D)SLR for professional photographers. Interchangable lenses, speed, autofocus accuracy, noise level - there is no camera with EVF on the market which can compete with any of these. (And if I was a pro myself I would also buy a 1Ds today. Yes, despise me if you will that I am not a pro! But I was and am a serious amateur with more than 20 years of camera, darkroom and Photoshop experience if you want to know. And the first time I got my hands on a usable EVF camera I realized the possibilities denied to owners of (D)SLRs and features denied to EVF users.)

I did not write anywhere that today's EVF cameras are better then DSLRs. Nor did I say that you must use them instead of an SLR. My original post can be reformulated so that what is the reason that we have no alternative to SLRs yet? The answer  'because every serious photographer buys (D)SLRs you stupid' is not enough.

[Digi-T]

I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest, seeing valid points from both sides. I used a 35mm film camera and then I switched to digital. I am currently using a Sony F707 so my experience is only based on this camera. With the EVF I figure that I am easily able to do about 90% of what I was able to do with my octical viewfinder but with the additional features that an EVF provides. The other 10% of functionality regards the manual focus, which is usable but more difficult than on an optical viewfinder. The F707 provides a 2x expanded focus which helps but it might be better if it were 4x or more along with an easy method of scrolling around the screen to view details. As it works now the important details may not be in the center of the screen. That combined with some more resolution and a bigger screen should make manual focussing quite usable on EVF's. The new F828 already has a bigger EVF with more resolution. As far as the color on the LCD I do not see any relevance. If you think the color is way off than don't pay any attention to the color and than you are right back where you are with the current DSLR's. The way I see it, seeing the final image on the LCD screen is only a bonus and, in no way, detracts from the experience. I really enjoy being able to see my previous shot in the EVF while the camera is up to my face and I am still prepared to shoot another shot. I can make a quick exposure correction and shoot another shot in an instant. As for the slow LCD screen. At least with my Sony, it is only this way at slower shutter speeds but it is very smooth at higher shutter speeds. So action events are actually better to view on the LCD then dark indoor events. I think most people are judging this effect while they are tesing out a camera indoors in very low light and so are coming away with a false assumption of the LCD screens. With all this said, I still prefer the clarity of an optical viewfinder but I would definitely miss many of the benefits of an EVF. In another thread on another forum I actually proposed the idea of enabling the larger LCD screen on DSLR's to be used for previewing images as well by using a mirror lockup function providing a live preview. I think this would be especially great for when you are using a tripod and would prefer to use the large LCD screen to compose the shot. This would also make it easier for hard to reach shots and macro shots. With a little ingenuity I think an LCD screen for previewing a shot on a DSLR is quite possible and could work quite nicely.

T

[BJL]

I have an E-20, and one of the reasons I bought it was the viewfinder.  I really prefered it over the EVF's on the other cameras I looked at.

Scott,
   I can see that, given EVF's as they were when you got the E-20, that the optical viewfinder has its advantages, though no-one is offering them anymore in that format.
   Since you have an E-20, can you answer some questions about its VF?

a) how large is the VF image compared to a typical modern AF 35mm SLR VF, of about 0.72x with 50mm lens?
Olympus does not give this information on its spec. sheet. [If they do give it somewhere like in the manual, I can imagine it being quoted in the strange traditional form like "1.2x @ 50mm", which would give an image about as big as for "0.3x @ 50mm" in 35mm format.]

 How did the VF images size compare to that on the EVF cameras that you compared to?

c) how adequate do you find that VF image size?
Smaller format DSLR's are leading to generall smaller viewfinder images, so I am curious as to how far down the VF image size size can go before too many serious photographers find it very inconvenient.