Sequential EVF "tearing" effect - reality or myth?

WhiteBeard wrote:

So, to summarize th results of this poll and rounding off the %:

• 50% of the "population" never saw the effect while another 30% saw it once in awhile but was not bothered by it; so at first glimpse, the tearing effect is a non-event for 80% of owners.
• About 10% were slightly bothered and another 10% were bothered enough to replace theirs cameras. The problem here, as was noted in some of the posts, is that the poll considered only present/past owners but did not include those who tried the camera before buying and decided against it because of the tearing effect. At least three posts explained just that.
• For this reason, making a totally un-scientific adjustment to the results - some would call it fudging - I suppose we are looking at about 77% that are not concerned by tearing as opposed to 23% who are bothered by it, with 15% or almost one out of six people that just can't stand it at all. This is somewhat surprising as a) I haven't heard that kind of noise about this issue in the forum and b) if it was true that 10-15% of the population was allergic to this product, it would seem strange that Panasonic not only waited so many years to come up with cameras that don't use a field-sequential EVF (GH3/4, and GX8 coming to mind) but that their latest product, the much-awaited GX85, is still touting a field-sequential EVF... True, a population of 60 is not a very good basis to get a true picture (pardon the pun) but it is still a sign that we should wait for more tests and user experience on the GX85 to find out if the FSEVF tearing issue is still relevant or not.

I see that the six votes that were about to ditch their camera (it has been around for quite a while) right after they showed their disgust had waited a long time to suddenly decide this. Perhaps we can take these votes as being not representative and being those of the "poll-buster" variety?

In this case there are likely to be no present owners of the GX7 that see this problem and are annoyed enough to rid themself of the camera.  On the other hand some may have divested themself of the camera at an earlier date because of this perceived problem.

But in truth it would seem that it is only a problem to the easily annoyed and anyone annoyed enough to divest themself of the camera on this account alone would have to only be one step short of plumb crazy and certainly one who had bought the camera with blinkers on.