This is becoming far more interesting and wide-reaching a "debate" than anything just touching upon photography: Bernard states one view on OVFs, to be instantly contradicted by other, opposing views, informing him that his view is just subjective. Now the question is, regarding the opposition, in whose mind and at which elevated stage of development of said mind, does subjectivity also attain the status of a legitimate objectivity?
For the record, I have only looked through one photographer's EVF and was publically and politely impressed but personally informed that it would never be my choice. It was either a Sony or Fuji - I can't remember which.
On 135 format flm, I loved all my Nikons from F to F4 regarding viewfinders (the F4 had terminal issues with loading); on digital, the D200 screen is tiny, and with the magnifier is improved, but there are times when I can't read the info. under the image because of daylight. The D700, again with its magnifier is, to me, perfect, as long as I use the two af lenses in the armoury. With my manual lenses, it can't really get near the film Nikons for ease of focussing, but I do have to factor in my older eyes.
As for the critique on the shot of Bernard's pretty daughter, and on which lash the goddam lens is focussed, that's so bloody banal as well as anal, that it surprises me to read it here. At f2, would anyone expect the contours of the human face to be sharp all over? It's impossible, unless using a head-clamp and a Gitzo, to put the desired subject plane into perfect alignment with sensor plane. Anyway, I can't imagine anyone doing portraits professionally, would decide to opt for f2. Bernard using that aperture is fine, because it lets him experiment with and enjoy a lens that's expensive and pretty wonderful, too - I only wish I could justify such a purchase. But as realistic technique for portraiture, it is nothing but a gimmick; an expensive, cheap photographic trick.
The other thing here that puzzles me is this: why would anyone want to see all sorts of other, distracting displays surrounding or even on top of the viewfinder image? After the novelty of chimping wore off (rapidly), I must admit that the only times that it rises to the surface as a possibility is when I want to work inside a room whilst pointing toward a subject backlit by a window. My reality has been that apart from such situations, always problematic, there is absolutely no need to look at a histogram or a representation of the file ever again until it's in the computer. Nikon's Matrix metering is accurate enough, and the camera's DR broad enough to make all this fine-tuning beloved of geeks in here quite pointless from a final image point of view. Heysoos, just shoot the friggin' picture and forget the mechanical foreplay! You'll end up sleeping either way.
