Why is EVF a negative thing?

I've tried to like EVFs.  I bought an early (2001) Minolta dimage 7 (bridge camera) with its 'wonderful EVF' that was supposed to make OVFs obsolete.  It didn't, and I was not able to use it for manual focusing.

I've tried the A55 and was unimpressed.  I've recently tried an A77 and will say that its EVF is a great improvement over the other cameras I mentioned.  However, I still find the image too harsh and problematic when used in scenes with a large dynamic range (shadows appear black, brights are blown out.)  With my OVF DSLR cameras (KM7D and Sony A700), I can get photos that show that shadow detail and highlights or at most need a little PP to bring it out.  I also find that I get eye strain when I use an EVF for a relatively short period of time.  I was able to manually focus well on fine detail, which is a big improvement over earlier EVF cameras.

I am very picky regarding VFs.  My pre DSLR experience was with OVF film cameras.  My favorite was the Maxxum 7 and one big reason was its excellent OVF.  It was large and bright and was much better than other brands in that class.  (The Maxxum 9 and A900 had a nicer VF, but were well out of my price / weight range.)  I refused to consider cameras with poor or tunnel vision VFs.

As far as APS-C DSLRs go, I felt that the KM7D and A700 had VFs (particularly with the Sony magnifier attached) that are very acceptable; the VF on my A100 is not (dark & small).  But my Maxxum 7 is like looking through a window, not a scope - there is no comparison.)

Maybe some day I will be comfortable with an EVF, and I acknowledge that I have some applications where an EVF camera would be useful -just like my A100 (IR converted) has its uses in spite of its VF.  But for now, I don't feel that is what I want for my general purpose camera.

Tom