Now, please bear with me on this. I don't expect it to resonate with everyone, but I would be interested in your views, pro- and contra. Much has been written over the years about the loss of the OVF (or indeed any VF) from compact cameras. This is taken to its logical conclusion in the smartphone - I cannot think of any with an OVF... I understand the arguments from the manufacturers point of view - reduced complexity, reduced cost, taking up space, etc. - but I think there is another factor in the equation that has been largely overlooked. We laughed about "zombies" holding their cameras out at arms length to take a picture - but take a look around. At any big event there are now more zombies than anything else - George Romero was right. There are practical arguments against using the rear screen - it is a less stable pose, for a start, and it is also prone to washout in bright light and destroying your night vision in low light - but that doesn't seem to stop it becoming the de facto standard by which images are visualised and taken. We talk about "holding someone at arms length" as a means of expressing standoffishness or a lack of desire to get involved. If we are holding our cameras at arms length are we also by extension putting a barrier between us and them? I regularly use an old Leica II; the viewfinder and rangefinder on it are physically separate (they were incidentally added in 1934 - it originally saw the light of day in 1929...) In order to take a photo I have to mash it to my face and shift my eye from 'finder to 'finder. When I do so, it is a part of me and I am an intimate part of the picture taking process. Ditto with a Leica M - only one eyepiece there, of course, but I the machine is close to my face and effectively ceases to exist - the scene is there in front of me, rather than the scene plus my arms, my camera and on the back of the camera with a smaller version of the scene... On a cold day, my camera is cold against my skin. On a hot day my sweat gets in the eyepiece; I interact with my tool. I admit that I feel a strong emotional attachment to my II. I have had it now for about 5 years. When it arrived with me it was in a sorry state and I had it CLA'd so that it would be good for another 80 years or so. I took a picture of it then, and looked at it recently and realised that it has almost twice as much brassing as when I first got it; I have done that, through using it. Effectively I have marked it as mine. Conversely, I have worked my way through a number of Panasonic LX and Leica D-Lux generations over the years. Each has been a competent camera, but I have never felt that I was doing anything other than using a commoditised, mass produced tool - a thing to do a job, much like a mobile phone or a cheap pen. I wonder to what extent the churn that we see as new cameras come out is because there is no longer a bond between the photographer and the tool due to the tool being - in both senses of the word - now held at arms length. I freely admit to being an ENFP, right-brained, high EQ sort of person but I suspect that I am not alone in this. Thoughts?