I have some questions. It may sound as though I'm trying to provoke, but being fairly new to digital photography, I really am not sure of this concept, and may have missed something.
The first question is: is SLR as a way of designing DIGITAL still cameras even a good way to go, let alone the best?
I accept that all of the most advanced professional cameras on the market ARE slr's, but isn't that mainly because that's what pro's and enthusiasts are comfortable with (SLR good, EVF bad), hence any ambitious design has to be done as an slr to be accepted in the market? Isn't the slr an ingenious and venerable design paradigm invented to allow ttl view finders in the context of a film blocking direct viewing? With digital sensors having replaced film, isn't viewing the image as detected by the sensor the best possible way to frame a shot?
Sure, I see that the little 2-3" LCD's on the cameras are inadequate. But why not remote the display (and other controls!) to a laptop, via wireles/cat5 cable, and use the beautiful big displays (15" and up, ultra bright, HDTV aspect) that even cheap laptops have. Are any of the other advanced features found on high end SLR cameras really tied to the SLR idea, by anything but prejudice and marketing?
I have another personal reason for not using the viewfinder on my camera. I am 55 years old and cannot focus that close, although my distance vision and color perception is fine. I suspect this a pretty common situation.
I'd very much like to discuss these ideas rationally. I'm here to learn, not to rant.