>>4471830
>You get more joy not looking through a viewfinder at all
Sounds like your viewfinder is the problem, an optical one enhances the experience instead of detracting from it. Because you see THROUGH THE LENS.
>No it doesn't. Seeing how the photo would actually turn out allows you to decide how to best expose it
But you don't see how it would turn out, you see a mangled interpretation of the RAW. It's like judging a negative based on a 30 minute photo lab print.
>The dynamic range can be compressed, also there's shit like histograms and exposure peaking. Can't have that with an optical finder
With the OVF you see the real DR, not some "compressed" (lower DR) crap. Histograms are a joke unless you do uniWB, because they reflect the processed JPEGesque preview. Exposure peaking is a needless crutch if you know the zone system, even a burden.
All your arguments have told me is that