Sigh.
No one who has replied to my original post has actually refuted the point.
Can anyone actually make a cogent argument as to how a professional actually benefits from having an optical viewfinder? The closest I have seen so far is that someone mentioned that a pure optical viewfinder will save on battery life, since it means not lighting up an LCD screen. So far, that's the only point scored. However, if you simply trade the extra weight the reflex system and prism add for more battery, then I think you'd wind up ahead of the game using an LCD.
Lastly, some have tried to argue that the form factor of SLRs and dSLRs is some how optimal. I disagree. They are traditional. They are what we have become accustomed to. That's not at all the same thing as "optimal." SLRs are, in fact, optimized to be held such that the viewfinder is in front of your eyeball. But if you don't have a need to hold the camera up to your eye, then that optimization is specious.
This is a matter of personal opinion for me. I have tried many many many cameras with electronic viewfinders and have not liked a single one of them. Lets break this down into two categories: cameras with eye level electronic viewfinders like the Nikon 1 V1 and the Panasonic GH2 and cameras with no viewfinder and a large LCD display like the iPhone and pretty much every P&S on the market. Each of these types of cameras has its own set of problems I don't want to deal with.
First, though, there are a few clear advantages to this technology, I'll give you that. Without a mirror, the lens is able to focus more precisely, as it is focusing at the exact distance from the sensor rather than off of a mirror. In theory, you are composing exactly as your final shot will appear.
Now the disadvantages. The most obvious one, to me, is something you pointed out as an improvement. LCD screens allow us to compose in situations where you cannot physically put the camera up to your eye. This is great in hard to reach places, but by putting the camera up to your eye, the camera has 3 points of contact with the body as opposed to one or two, and this provides much greater stability, crucial when working in low light or with long lenses. Another disadvantage I see is that the camera is automatically adjusting exposure, white balance, etc, on the on screen preview, before you take the shot. Many times, the camera will take the shot with much different settings, shutter speed being the big one. The preview is not representative of the final image. My eye has become very well trained to see what the lens is seeing without going through a computer first, with the lens wide open, and adjusting exposure as necessary. Basically, I haven't shot with a light meter in years, I'm very good at judging exposure and how the lens sees the light, and setting the camera by that. This is me though. I am a trained photographer. This is not the case for everyone.
Basically, this is a personal choice. I like seeing what the lens is seeing, not what the camera's brain is seeing. Electronic viewfinders are slow to react and provide poor, pixelated image quality (small viewfinder type displays). The mechanical action of the mirror takes a small fraction of a second and I can see through the lens again in real time. I don't have to wait for the camera. I think electronic viewfinders are a solution for a few small problems that in turn creates a bigger problem. I hate all of these ridiculous features camera companies feel the need to put in their cameras to make them the next big thing. Cameras used relatively simple tools that accomplish one task, and for me, thats what I want. Leica still knows how to do that. I think my next purchase will be a used M9. Ironically, not a DSLR. So I guess in conclusion, maybe you're right, DSLRs aren't the be all end all of cameras, but I also can't stand electronic viewfinders and mirrorless cameras in general. There are plenty of professional non DSLR cameras out there that I would consider, but very very few of them use electronic viewfinders. I still consider this to be a feature of "amateur" cameras. And its very helpful for amateurs, but I don't think professionals will be giving up their DSLRs any time soon.
