My first digital camera (a Minlta Dimage 7) had an electronic viewfinder and after using it for a couple of years I came to see some nice advantages. Not that I'm sold on the principle, but I can see plenty of reasons to spend R&D time and money in refining it.

At first, the smearing, stutter, time lag and lack of detail drove me crazy... but all of these are things that time and development have improved since the D7 was on the market... overall I'd say we still aren't there when compared to the best optical viewfinders, but you can see progress being made.

Power consumption is a concern too. Minolta tried to address this with a sensor next to the viewfinder that turned it on and off in response to the proximity of one's eye. I'm sure other solutions are out there as well so we may not have to worry about this at some point in the future.

I did like the fact that there was less vibration, no mirror blackout and no noise (in fact, the Minolta had to provide a soft click sound that you could turn on and off, otherwise you couldn't really be sure you'd taken a shot).

Another plus was the response to light... you could actually get a rough idea of exposure before you took the photo, and you could also see color shifts which would let you know if your white balance was correct. Also, you could turn on a low-light mode that would brighten the finder in a similar fashion to a night-vision scope... this came in pretty handy at times.

The most serious downside to the EVF for me was lack of detail. I have enough problems when focusing manually on the new DSLR's (the old split image and microprism aids in my film SLR's are sorely missed)... but the EVF was much worse, there was never enough detail there for critical focusing. Sure, some EVF's let you magnify a portion of the image just as you can with Live View on most DSLR's, but who the hack has the time to do that in most shooting situations? I think for most photographers, viewfinder detail is going to be the most critical sticking point of the EVF.

But I'm trying to keep an open mind... the EVF may end up being a great boon to photographers if manufacturers can address its current problems and make them more attractive by providing features our optical finders don't have (like the aforementioned magnification, as well as zebra and peaking).

For now, I'm sticking with my DSLR.

No way. I could not use one of these mirrorless cameras day-to-day.

A lot of the fun of photography for me is the experience rather than the end result.

I LOVE the "ka chunk" of the shutter on my D7000 (although the shutter on my old D90 sounded much more meaty and satisfying.) I just couldn't bring myself to take a picture if I didn't get that when I pressed the button :/

Pierre said:
It should not be too hard to attach handles to a small camera.

We shall see what the companies bring to the table.

Godless said:
...If and when the decent-sized models appear, it´s going to be another story.

It should not be too hard to attach handles to a small camera.

Testing123 said:
There is no need to draw a correlation between mirrorless and weight, much less to use that as an argument that mirrorless won't take over the pro market.

True. Yet I believe the mirrorless cameras to be published in the near future will be quite similar in size and weight with the Sony NEX, which is too small for me to even consider buying them. If and when the decent-sized models appear, it´s going to be another story.

It might be that the requirements for optical viewfinders (OV) is becoming a liability in the advancement of technology and at one point, it may just have to go.

As an example, it would be impossible to put an OV on the spherical lens design of the gigapixel camera. Once freed from the OV requirement, the design of cameras can dramatically change.

Nikon has a patent for an in-camera fuel cell which would most likely solve the power problem.

There might still be a market even among professionals for both systems. Electronic books have not yet replaced their paper counterpart after all. Perhaps, professionals and advanced amateurs would find the need to carry both.

Godless said:
Never. It´s just too unpractical, unbalanced and unwieldy with the heavy glass.
Most professionals and serious hobbyists still (and always will) prefer a good grip, reasonable weight and decent sized buttons.

As if the D3's mirror box is why it weighs so much more than a D3100.

There is no need to draw a correlation between mirrorless and weight, much less to use that as an argument that mirrorless won't take over the pro market.

Godless said:
Never. It´s just too unpractical, unbalanced and unwieldy with the heavy glass.
Most professionals and serious hobbyists still (and always will) prefer a good grip, reasonable weight and decent sized buttons.

Funny, pros seemed to manage heavy glass back in the 1980s with small SLRs, although people tended to use primes more.

Godless said:
Never. It´s just too unpractical, unbalanced and unwieldy with the heavy glass.
Most professionals and serious hobbyists still (and always will) prefer a good grip, reasonable weight and decent sized buttons.

Never say I will not drink from this water. (From the Spanish quote: Nunca digas de esta agua no beberé.)

The rumors say Nikon will something on this issue: http://nikonrumors.com/category/nikon-evil

NikoDoby said:
How long do you think, if ever, will Nikon's line-up be completely mirrorless?

Never. It´s just too unpractical, unbalanced and unwieldy with the heavy glass.
Most professionals and serious hobbyists still (and always will) prefer a good grip, reasonable weight and decent sized buttons.

kyoshinikon said:
But those "viewfinders" on the "Lens Interchangeable, Viewfinder Electronic" cameras are evil hearty... They are threatening our beloved low end dslrs "smirk" :}

I personally find that electric viewfinders cause strain on the eye (at least for someone who uses a viewfinder as much as I do), which will still be an issue long after the lag issue is solved...

I concur with kyoshinikon. Ever had to stare at an LCD monitor for too long. Now try putting that near your eye. I don't think evil cameras will get past consumer market. unless the will get major advancement, which they surely will at some point. unitl then i will stick to the old trusted tech.

But those "viewfinders" on the "Lens Interchangeable, Viewfinder Electronic" cameras are evil hearty... They are threatening our beloved low end dslrs "smirk" :}

I personally find that electric viewfinders cause strain on the eye (at least for someone who uses a viewfinder as much as I do), which will still be an issue long after the lag issue is solved...

I like it, hearty.

Sigh .. I really dont like the EVIL acronym.. lets call it LIVE instead! Lens Interchangeable, Viewfinder Electronic! I would be more happy with a LIVE camera than an EVIL one.. :-)

Yup.. You saw it here first !

Reflex mirrors are nice, but once EFVs are as good or better I doubt we'll see them in any cameras. Say goodbye to shutter lag and losing focus on moving subjects between shots. They could even do what Sony does in the Alfa line, have a separate sensor for AF and leaving the EVF free to just show you what the sensor sees.

If I can get amazing image quality from my 50" HD TV then why not from a "tiny" viewfinder? I don't think power consumption will be an issue as battery tech is also improving vastly. There is a lot of research going on to improve autofocus too so eventually that won't be as big of a problem.

I remember when the first autofocus cameras came out and people complained about them as well. "Real photographers don't use autofocus" "too slow" etc. etc. But the technology was here to stay and it quickly improved. Canon went so far as to replace their lens mount.

So in due time better/fast/stronger autofocus and electronic viewfinders will be here.

NikoDoby said:
It seems that Olympus will be the first "major" camera manufacturer to go to a completely mirrorless product line-up. The market for EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras is skyrocketing while "traditional" reflex mirrored cameras appears to be getting ready for a steep dive in sales.

Nikon's new prez has already indicated that photography is about to be "redefined" which to many means Nikon will soon announce a mirrorless still/video camera. So is the Reflex mirror an endangered species now? How long do you think, if ever, will Nikon's line-up be completely mirrorless?

If they can make an EVF that's better than a prism, why not? It'd be awesome to get 100% coverage from a D40 and still have a viewfinder the size of a D3's.

jonnyapple said:
Fun discussion. I don't think it's going anywhere as long as electronic viewfinders (EVFs) can't compare with optical viewfinders in terms of resolution. Raise your hand if you want to have a look through the 0.46" 920,000-dot EVF of the just-announced Sony NEX-VG10 [jonny raises hand].

In fact, even if EVFs do catch up, there are arguments against taking out the prism—one main one is the hit you take in power consumption by always reading from the sensor and lighting an LCD screen.

AF is the other real kicker. If someone comes up with a good way to do phase-detected autofocus without the beam-splitting mirror (or maybe with an immobile beam splitter even at the cost of light transmission), that's one more roadblock cleared for a pro-level EVIL camera.

But I for one would like to watch a major news conference without the [click-click-click-click-click] of DSLR shot bursts in the background.

I'm sure the power consumption one is an easy fix, eventually EVF will consume so little power it won't be an issue.

The issue is some one needs to come up with the technology. :D

Personally, I do not care for the electronic viewfinder. I just feel "disconnected" from the camera. For this reason, I do not use the Live View mode on any of my cameras that have that feature. I also find it hard to see the image in bright light using Live View. I know there are hoods available for the LCD to prevent this, but ........

Having never handled an "EVIL", I may have misconceptions in comparing them to using Live View, or a point and shoot that has only an LCD and no optical viewfinder.

I did have an early "Live View" camera, if you will. It was a Nikon F2H. With its Pellicle mirror, there was never any viewfinder blackout during exposure. While the viewfinder image could be rather dark, especially with slower lenses, it was quite nice for keeping very fast moving objects like airplanes, race cars, etc. properly framed.

Fun discussion. I don't think it's going anywhere as long as electronic viewfinders (EVFs) can't compare with optical viewfinders in terms of resolution. Raise your hand if you want to have a look through the 0.46" 920,000-dot EVF of the just-announced Sony NEX-VG10 [jonny raises hand].

In fact, even if EVFs do catch up, there are arguments against taking out the prism—one main one is the hit you take in power consumption by always reading from the sensor and lighting an LCD screen.

AF is the other real kicker. If someone comes up with a good way to do phase-detected autofocus without the beam-splitting mirror (or maybe with an immobile beam splitter even at the cost of light transmission), that's one more roadblock cleared for a pro-level EVIL camera.

But I for one would like to watch a major news conference without the [click-click-click-click-click] of DSLR shot bursts in the background.

It seems that Olympus will be the first "major" camera manufacturer to go to a completely mirrorless product line-up. The market for EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras is skyrocketing while "traditional" reflex mirrored cameras appears to be getting ready for a steep dive in sales.

Nikon's new prez has already indicated that photography is about to be "redefined" which to many means Nikon will soon announce a mirrorless still/video camera. So is the Reflex mirror an endangered species now? How long do you think, if ever, will Nikon's line-up be completely mirrorless?