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.

It's a reality AND a myth. Reality is that it happens. Myth is when a major review site like DPR says "it's a problem" without properly understanding the statistics about how many people are susceptible to it and how often. Because when you take that into account, it should not be listed as "a problem".

Another myth is that it is inherent to sequential field tech. If you get the scanning rate high enough, nobody will detect it. So it can be 'removed' for all practical purposes: it is not unavoidable.

Do some research on DLP projector technology. It is also sequential display tech, and some people detect the tearing and rainbow effects, but you don't see claims that DLP is unremittingly inferior just because of it -- well, not on the major review sites. Internet trolliots will exaggerate anything. And you will also see figures like 5% of people can detect it, not too unlike your analysis of your poll results.