Viewfinder or live screen?

The viewfinder / no viewfinder debate has always struck me as somewhat overstated. We can prefer one or the other, or indeed prefer one rather than the other in certain situations. This doesn't imply one is "better" than the other, just more suitable for the circumstances.

m4/3 and CSC's also give us a lot of choice. In the case of the Olympus Pens and the Panasonic GF series, with many of the cameras, we even have the option of buying a viewfinder or not. This has now become the case with (probably) all future NEX cameras.

Surely its an advantage to have as many options as possible? I can't say that I've ever had my "creativity" restricted by a viewfinder and enhanced by a live view screen, or vice versa, and the ability to be able to select whichever view mode I choose, has always struck me as one of the great advantages of modern digital cameras.

It seems that many manufacturers are finally realising that many people do appreciate the two alternative methods of working. While live view work is still not particularly user friendly with most DSLR's, many CSC manufacturers have added viewfinders to their live view offerings and in the case of the Fuji X100 have now provided OVF, EVF and live view. The Sony SLT system also offers a way forward.

More choices and more options surely equals more possiblilities. Why restrict yourself to one way of working? When live view screens first appeared I was unsure as to whether they would offer me anything useful, however I soon discovered that they were a very useful option indeed, and one that I have used extensively.

I'm always somewhat disappointed when I read that people are ruling out different ways of working, because I see imposing restrictions on myself as, well... restrictive, and I like to explore what working in a different way will offer me.

Ultimately isn't it the final image that counts? How we obtained it is secondary, and if using a different method of composing gives us the capacity for surprise, isn't that a good thing?