Consider this a bit of a rant/rave if you will. I see many of you running around with a VF2 or a VF3 or a glass hotshoe finder or even one of the Panasonic SLR-alikes like my G2. In fact I bought the G2 mainly to see if having a viewfinder was a nice addition. No. It isn't. And that brings me back to the point: I bought into this system to get away from viewfinders! I was all set to buy a DSLR until I realized they're not live view cameras, and you always need to have them up against your face. (Yeah some have LV now, but they're not good at it. SLT was too expensive.) People complain about bright sunlight with LCDs, but I find this is rarely a problem and that I can shade the LCD well enough to get by in even the extreme cases. Maybe it's because I wear glasses. It's much more difficult to look into the finder since I can't get my eye very close, and I'm not going to take my glasses off just to take a photo. What a hassle that would be. Plus I find it difficult to actually use the finder without closing the other eye, and that becomes also extremely uncomfortable after a little while. Maybe it's something you grow accustomed to growing up with film. I didn't. Yeah my dad had a nice N80, but I was never interested. I'm not accustomed to the viewfinder as a composition mechanism in general, and even more so I find it to be incredibly limiting. I can only compose at eye-level, and maybe with some effort I can adjust my eye-level but I'm still stuck with where I can get my head. Arm's length covers an awful lot of places, and with the G2's wonderful "tilty-flippy screen" I can choose all kinds of wacky or unusual angles. Call me crazy but I don't want to just take photos of what my eyes can see, because the camera and the photo can never do justice to that. We see the world in 3D, after all. Anyways I just wanted to blurt that out.