[JJ_SO]

Great example, seriously. Personally, I find the Z viewfinders (any EVF, to be honest) extremely annoying in bright daylight or any high contrast scenario, since they give such a weird image. I would personally always rely on focus and recompose and an OVF, for sure. No issues at all with that approach, either, for decades now.

Now, does that prove one of us right or wrong? Certainly not. There is a system that fits your needs and wishes, and there is another one fitting mine. Why does it need an ongoing and never ending battle to prove the other side wrong or inferior?

I don't see the greatness of my example in your reasoning about OVF. But anyway, if you say so...

Yes, the brighter the light, the more difference between reality and EVF. But who knows, we might see adapting EVFs one day - if they can amplify their backlight and still stay close to colour rendition.

And your recomposing demands certain concepts of composition. You simply could not do that, if you have a wide angle lens, wide open and with certain amount of field curvature (which doesn't matter in the final result, but with your method I would miss focus and with my method I get the best sharpness in this specific example.

And you also can't do that with erratically moving objects. It's a rather static method with more sources for inaccuracy than the indirect AF already has.

Sure, one can go on and take pictures like we're used to during the last century, why not, nothing wrong with that - but I enjoy the possibilities I gained and sometimes my main object is not centered in the "safe area". Isn't photography not also a sometimes surprising idea? But maybe it's a good thing that the users of old, traditional methods (which once were simple workaround to get at least a chance of a sharp picture) stick to it and stay on to their turf.