I've heard two explanations, neither of which strikes me as very persuasive:
- Taking time to review what you have just shot is a distraction that interrupts your effort to visualize the next image.
- If you know what you are doing, you shouldn't have to chimp to determine whether you nailed the shot.
The second rationale strikes me as especially bogus because unless you are operating the camera in full manual mode, chimping may be the only way to discover that the firmware has done something dodgy—e.g., botched autofocus—while you still have an opportunity to try the shot again.
On the other hand, depending on how good the electronic viewfinder is in the X-Pro3, using it to review an image may be as effective as looking at a back panel, especially in bright sunlight.
Hmm... the only time I chimp is when I am faced with serious backlighting situations.
Yes, you do have to know something about how exposure works to do it (not chimp) with confidence, but hey, coming from film, it's a no-brainer.
There are many film photographers who claim never to use a meter; I have no idea if those same guys do their own developing and printing. If they did, they would soon learn that the eye is not terribly reliable. When I shot b/w film I would meter the set-up, and once I had that nailed, never look at the meter again unless I had to change something for some reason. With transparencies, I always used a meter to set the thing up, as above, but frequently checked to make sure the sun hadn't clouded over to a tiny degree that could go unnoticed. Colour trannie was far more vulnerable to light modification than was black/white film.
I had a Polaroid back for my Hassy pair but doubt that I pulled more than a dozen shots in all the many years I owned those lovely machines.
With digital, I have the Nikon on Matrix metering, and for anything that, as I explained when I came in, does not have extremes of backlighting, the thing is perfectly accurate enough for anything I have had to do.
In the case of that exteme backlight, I go off automatic metering, and once I have chimped the situation to my taste, don't use it again until in another lighting situation when, usually, it's back to Matrix. Otherwise, by the way, the camera is almost always on auto ISO, the most convenient aid of them all. With aperture (mainly) being the more important factor for me, shutter set to whatever I think the task needs, ISO can go where the science tells it to go as long as it isn't too high for my needs, which it is normally not. Actually, the greater problem I face is that sensors are too sensitive, and I hate using ND filters, even though I have a variable one.
P.S.
Just struck me: looking at making-of videos, one often sees as assistant darting into shot and checking something again with a meter. That's in the really big-time world... so meters are not obsolete quite yet.