Why is EVF a negative thing?

In a lot of comparisons on the internet EVF is bad, and OVF is the best? Why is something different counted as bad? I can;t stand it anymore hahaha.
But honestly, I prefer EVF big time

Its not a "negative thing", EVF vs OVF is an Apples vs Oranges comparison. There are pros and cons for each, and its up to end users to determine what is right for them. Some people are quite stubborn to change and will badmouth anything new, hence why it might seem like EVF is a "negative thing". Those who prefer EVF are less vocal since they're spending their time taking pictures.

IMHO, EVF is the future but there are plenty of room for improvement until it can truly replace OVF. Same goes for on-sensor auto-focus and electronic shutter.

I think that a lot of photographers who have never worked seriously with an EVF camera or don't have this choise within 'their' brand will defend slamming mirror OVF cameras ...

Agree that there are Pros and Cons for each and that many long term photogs naturally will be resistant to change.  But for me, I prefer to spend my 2 cents on an EVF.  I have the a77 and I took its Pros and Cons into consideration when making the choice to purchase it and the EVF was one of those.  I also have the NEX-5N with the attachable OLED EVF that tilts and love that "flexibility". 

--
"If I knew how to take a good photograph, I'd do it every time." - Robert Doisneau

I think that a lot of photographers who have never worked seriously with an OVF camera or don't have this choice within 'their' brand will defend the always fixed mirror degrading image quality EVF cameras ...

--
Regards,
Juan
http://500px.com/endosphoto
http://www.facebook.com/endosphotography

Sadly, many people are tribal.  Today, tribal identity is applied to brand choices, and things such as -- somewhat astonishingly -- which kind of camera viewfinder they prefer.  People will, compulsively, turn any decision into a symbol of tribal identity.

The problem is amplified by people who demand absolutism in their answers.  This is typically done on-line by asking questions of a general nature, about ranking or about good/bad or positive/negative, without giving any specifics.

This, in turn, leads to a parade of straw men, each no more real than the one before, set on fire in public to the fire-starters enjoyment, but providing neither light nor warmth.

OP:  For me, an OVF provides a level of detail and a fidelity to what my eyes see without the intervention of a machine that helps me make better pictures.  The better question than the one in your subject line -- assuming you are trying to learn, and not simply gather attention -- might take the form: "I want to do X, would Y help me?"  "Good" and "Bad" are only meaningful in context.  I don't think you provided any.

Benarm:  about that straw man.  This is just a rediculous statement:

"Those who prefer EVF are less vocal since they're spending their time taking pictures. :)"

Even with the smiley.

--
-- Kirby Krieger.

I can see why people prefer OVF in top notch FF cameras. Those viewfinders have fine optics and deliver some serious quality.

Almost all aggressive OVF defenders I personally know have beginner to amateur DSLRs (with very bad OVFs, D5000, 1100/500/600D) and never used an EVF for more than five seconds.

Where do their arguments come from? From random internet comparisons of high quality FF camera OVFs with EVFs! They love to overlook that most of those arguments don't apply to their own cameras OVFs. I gave up arguing about VFs :D.

People tend to dislike what they can't have and twist the facts to their liking (Instead of admiting that it is an advantage to be able to review photos in the EVF my "peer" makes jokes about how funny it looks to do that. Their solution in brigt sunlight? - None. They just don't check their pictures :D).

The old school SLR people like me grew up with Optical Viewfinders which were nice and large and clear enough to see evrything in, even though it bore no realtion to how the exposure would turn out other than by intuiting the effects of f stop and aperture displayed on analog dials. The split-image viewfinder circle was a smooth and sure way of getting manual focus.   So if EVF manufacturers want to tempt the old-school over they need to digitally emulate that split-image central focusing rangefinder aid.

However I got an A57 body BECAUSE of the huge EVF, nice LCD, and Focus Peaking. Other entry level optical finders are pathetic (apart from Pentax).

--
John.
Please visit me at:
http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/sony_18135
http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50819700

--
What's that noise?

....

Rest assure that when C or N or both ( which will in time unavoidably happen ) surrender to the EVF, it will be called "the best thing since  sliced bread"!!

... Lucas

--
Always having fun with photography
http://www.lucaspix.smugmug.com/

Thanks for the comments guys.
I asked this question to get a feeling how people think of it, and to see if we live in a bubble
I can agree that the Highend cameras with OVF are great, I started out with minolta in the time there were only OVFs. But back then I just shot, and didn't knew what I was doing (up to the A200)
On the A77 the EVF brought me one big advantage and that is the learning curve. Instantly I could see what a change of settings does with the image. I know many people starting, are dazzled with camera options and the stop triangle is like magic and hard to learn.
But with the EVF I got more sense what I was doing and what different settings did.
That to me did it with OVF's, even if they are cristal clear.

the advantage for you is not one that most sony advocates would like to talk about.  it implies that evf is noobie-oriented.  i have the sony a550 with it's small OVF.  last year i bought a nikon as i didn't want to upgrade to an EVF (even tho the sony line has plenty of advantages).

the number 1 viewfinder to me is the hybrid evf/ovf in the fuji cameras.  i can only hope that this is the future. beautiful and clear when you want it, evf when it's dark or for more accurate live view style focusing.

both sides have circled their wagons tho and reasonable discussion usually degenerates fast.  what i find very bothersome is the slow turn-on of the evf when i raise it to my eye.

I worked with that OVF stuff for more than 30 years an am glad to got rid of it. And most of us (like Nordstjernen) have decades of OVF history. And perhaps more experience than you.

I jumped twice from OVF to EVF and am still glad with it.

It is not important what my eye sees but what my camera is going to see.

Right!

Wrong!

That is bound to happen in the future when OVF will be as prevalent as EVF was 20 years ago.

And 20 years ago, people didn't have choice but to use OVF. Back in those days, however, Rangefinder systems were superior and closer to reality than mirror-based systems for the same reasons that many present for OVF against EVF.

For me, the choice is EVF. There is no going back. It affords me a capable tool from the point of view of the camera. If I need my eyes' point of view, I would rather not rely on an OVF but my eyes.

--

Sony A55, Sony NEX-3, Sony F828

It depends on what you want to do and how you like to work.  I've used both, and there are good and bad to both of them.  I prefer the optical viewfinder for the portrait work I do, and for my landscape work.  For my night photography, I found the EVF better for a dark scene, but the Intelligent Preview on my a850 does give me a similar capability for those.

--
yakkosmurf
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yakkosmurf/
a850, a700, R1
24-70CZ, 16-35 CZ, 135CZ, 70-400G, 70-300G, 16-80CZ, Sig 24 1.8 & 10-20 4.5
F58AM flash

Because some people prefer OVFs. It's much like how some people prefer fixed screens, which allow for thinner bodies, others prefer tiltable screens, which are permanently aligned with the lens, and other prefer screens with full swivel, to shoot from whatever angle they feel like it---it's a personal thing.

Me, I much prefer EVFs, particularly (but not solely) due to the advantage that often goes hand-in-hand with them: lack of the sharpness-killing, annoyingly loud mirror slap. But, so long as they don't behave like some of the worst users of this forum, trashing anything that's not their preferred form of shooting as "obviously inferior" or that anyone who prefers EVFs must be "too inexperienced to realize the truth", I've no problem with OVF proponents and wish them luck in whatever system they choose to employ---even the Alpha system, if its other advantages prove too attractive to give up, or they can get a hold of enough spare A900 bodies on the 'bay.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/draek
http://500px.com/draek

Its just jealousy.... 

From the answers that each of you are giving to the OP, it would seem that you are all trying to convince yourself that EVF is the new and better way. In my opinion, there is no EVF as yet that can match the OVF of most DSLRs. When I put my D300s to my eye, and then my Sony A65, there is no question that OVF by far exceeds the quality of EVF. Maybe this will not be the case in the near future, but for now , this is how it is. On the other hand, what I have experienced so far is that the Sony A65  phase-detection AF is very fast ... spectacular , and the live-view function it offers is unmatched ,and so for me I personally use the LCD when I can, and only use the EVF when it is not convenient. I am not trying to disagree with the answers that most of you have given for there is a vast difference between the EVF of the A65, A77 compared to the A57 which I also had for a brief moment. I hardly ever wanted to look through the viewfinder of the A57 as I felt it was like tunnel vision. I might end up sounding like the bad guy here, but facts are facts for what it is worth.