The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor.
Right and because of color gamut issues (amongst others), you'll never see on your monitor at home or on paper what it is that you saw through the viewfinder that was glass and mirrors. In which case, what value does the optical view finder have if the colors that you see will not be the colors that are captured and displayed later?
The resolution and gamut of ground glass surpasses both an EVF and a print, but the RAW file (22 megapixels, 16 bit color) still surpasses what's seen in the low res EVF by far. Even an analogue negative far surpasses what's seen on the print... It's just part of the process.
Whether I capture all of it or not, I'm composing based on what I see, and either attempting to replicate that accurately or improve upon it by throwing in a subjective spin or at worst mitigating the damage if the scene is too detailed/there's not enough light/the contrast ratio is too high. When I grade, I don't use an iPhone. I want a high end CRT or Flanders LCD (or my Dreamcolor at home at worst!). Just because the final result is inevitably a compromise doesn't mean I need to compose for a worst case scenario.
When I shoot, I want the truest representation of the scene available to compose from; as for worrying about contrast ratios and white balance and whatnot well... years of spot metering and color temperature metering gives me the experience to know roughly what I'm getting and if I don't, I take out the meter.
I'm not kidding when I say if you win the Tour de France it doesn't matter if you have on training wheels. If your photos are amazing in the print, you could have taken them blind for all I care.
But, personally, I do better when I don't.