Having the viewfinder mask out the surrounding elements of the scene makes it easier to see what is included, yes. But conversely, it makes it harder to see what elements of the scene you're excluding. The whole point of composition is to decide what to include and what not to include, and if you can only see one of those your composition may suffer. Practically, you can zoom out and/or move the camera around to see what you'd be missing, but using the LCD with a bit of distance between you and the camera means you can immediately see what the viewfinder isn't showing you.
It isn't necessary to zoom back to see what's outside the field of view (and isn't possible with a prime). All you need to do is open the other eye.
For landscapes and several other subjects, I normally have both eyes open when making the initial framing, but then close the other eye so that I can concentrate on the resulting image.
For BIF, and other action subjects that are difficult to frame accurately, I zoom back to locate the subject, and then zoom in for the shot.
I also find it highly beneficial to have lots of megapixels, so that I can allow space around the subject - not only to compensate for inaccurate framing of erratically moving subjects, but also so that I can choose between various cropping options in post.
Using the "LCD at a bit of distance" means that it only occupies a very small area of your eye's field of view, so you can't see much in the way of detail, and can't judge focus, depth of field, bokeh remotely as well as with an EVF, which is part of the reason I use the latter and encourage others to do the same.
Particularly when shooting on a tripod, I find the LCD much easier to use than the eye-level viewfinder.
I have 4 tripods, and in the past used them frequently for landscapes, botany, fungi etc, but I rarely use them these days due to better noise and DR preformance with modern sensors, and the fact that I don't like to encumber myself with extra gear. If I was using a tripod, then yes I might use the screen, and use my hand to shade it from sunlight, and use the maginification feature to check details. But in practice I do most of my landscape shots handheld and use the EVF, crouching or kneeling if necessary - I don't mind getting muddy for the sake of a good photo!
Have you ever composed and focused a shot with a tilt-shift lens using the viewfinder? Not to mention that with an OVF, you have to meter separately because the lens movements muck up the TTL metering.
I have no difficulty at all in composing and focusing using my TS-E 24mm hand-held, and do so very frequently. Manual focusing is easy and quick, using peaking and/or the R5 focus indicator "thingy". It does take a few seconds, but that's not as long as it would take to set up a tripod, although landscape and botanical photography is rarely a hurried experience. Don't misinterpret this as me criticising tripod use - I used them regularly when I was younger, but no longer want the encumbrance on long hikes.
Not to mention that with an OVF, you have to meter separately because the lens movements muck up the TTL metering.
With an OVF that's true, although I habitually bracket my exposures anyway, so I've never found it a problem with my DSLRs. With an EVF, the metering issue with tilt/shift lenses doesn't exist, I use the histogram and bracket 2/3rds stop either side in high contrast conditions.
Speaking of being unable to admit a having weak argument, do you still claim that cameras without an eye-level viewfinder are fit only for the purpose of making technically poor, badly composed images? Maybe you conceded you were wrong, and I missed it.
I was, of course, exaggerating the point in my original post, in order to stimulate a debate
.
I think I've made it very clear in the posts that followed that my view is that it is perfectly *possible* to get sharp and well composed shots (under certain conditions) when composing on a screen, but that in most circumstances an EVF or OVF is a much *better* way to compose, and a steadier way to execute a photograph, when using a camera hand-held. The latter could almost certainly be proven by testing, and I've explained my reasoning for the former.
As an aside, my ideal viewfinder would be a *tilting* EVF, but I do find the rear screen much better for making menu and "quick screen" adjustments, as I don't like cycling through icons in the EVF. So the view through my EVF is usually completely unobscured, except when I activate the histogram.
