Quoted By:
The view through an optical viewfinder in relation to the ambient light is much more constant in terms of the difference in brightness. An optical viewfinder is also much less dependent on correct focusing, as the standard focusing screen does not achieve a depth of field of more than f/4. This behavior can be changed with another focusing screen, EVIL offer only one option system-wide, not yet a setting to switch working and adjustment aperture or even a freely selectable adjustment aperture. The points so far can be interpreted as positive or negative according to one's own preferences.
More subjective stuff:
With electronic viewfinders, I am still bothered by the manual and automatic adjustment of brightness to the ambient light, the high contrast, the seduction to pay attention to small details, which are ultimately not the same in the picture. Or, respectively, many little aids like zebras that obscure the essential, only to achieve a higher accuracy again, to improve the still lacking wysiwyg.
For me as a photographer experienced with DSLR, it hardly matters which viewfinder I use, but I have a preference for the optical viewfinder, but also prefer the advantages that EVIL cameras have added in recent years. At the same time, I find it a pity that DSLRs today will be less advanced in their capabilities, but I would not be willing to pay the extra expense just to work around the mirror camera for new features.
Most important, I want to say the EVF/OVF disussion is bogus, I find this endless recurring totally exhausting. At least I will keep my DSLR forever, if not renew it again, parallel to an EVIL. That's how much I like OVFs, still. I also have a film camera for the current system and my first digital SLR. Also because I simply like them for what they offer me and what they already offered me back then, and to a certain extent simply nostalgia.
I post here sometimes photos from the Canon EOS D60 from the year 2003, and nobody even notices worse quality.
