>>3340386>it's a fact that EVFs are better in a lot of waysIt's a matter of interpretation whether some features are better. Assume you're not interested in a preview of what the shot is going to look like.
An exposure preview can be unwanted where you have both shadow and sunlight in the view and switch between both in exposure, turning off exposure preview to have an average metering comes in handy with evfs, hdr could increase the viewable contrast or some auto exposure tracking the eye. An other option is an ovf. Same goes for dof in a scene with increased depth, it can be handy to see what the shot is going to look like, on the other side, it can be handy to see an increased depth without switching to dof preview.
>>3340386>[With dslr] you still don't really have any way of being sure how the exposure is going to turn out. What the camera thinks is right and what you actually want aren't always going to be the same. For example a DSLR won't care about blowing some highlights if it thinks the rest of the scene is correctly exposed, an EVF will show you exactly where those blown highlights are (zebra stripes) and you can make the choice to under expose and push in post.Keep calibration and the technical dictated viewable contrast of displays in mind which can lead to different previews between evf, display and monitor. Zebras and a histogram are more reliable than exposure previews and of course ovfs don't even show previews.
With dslr I'm often spot metering for the white clipping point, with film slr I'm spot metering for black and thus decide reliably what's going to be clipped in white/underexposed in black. With milc I tend to weigh up and nail exposure for every shot, changing settings with preview, zebras and histogram. For the moment, (d)slrs are my business cameras as I also rely on strobes or rather catch perspectives and moments. Milcs are my compact everyday backpack and leisure cameras where I shoot landscapes, cities and time with friends.
