Photoshop CC, Many of my photos are of raptors in flight so they are heavily cropped and any imperfections significantly impact the image, but even everyday portraits of family or my macro stuff, I have always found it better to start with an image that does not need a lot of pushing in post, I don't mind a little over exposure in fact I will do that on purpose knowing that correction is not destructive in post, but trying to lighten shadows or the entire scene is something that I would prefer to avoid.

Each type of viewfinder has it's pluses and minuses.

An EVF such as most mirrorless use can show "exposure simulation". That's a preview of what an image will look like based upon the current camera settings. As a result, you have immediate indication whether your settings are correct and are able to adjust accordingly, if needed. Assuming your settings are good, this also will brighten up the EVF if shooting in low light conditions or with manually stopped down lenses. Optical viewfnders can't do either.

However, an EVF also draws power constantly while in use. In addition, the camera's image sensor has to be continuously powered up to provide a signal for the EVF to display. It's much like using Live View with a DSLR.... And both put a heavy drain on batteries. In many mirrorless this is further compounded by the small format batteries that many of them use in an effort to keep the camera small and light. Optical viewfinders themselves draw no power at all and the camera's sensor isn't active continuously either. As a result, compared to a DSLR with an OVF, most mirrorless cameras with an EVF get far fewer shots per charge so you may need to buy and carry more spare batteries.(Of course, readout displays and AF systems seen in the viewfinder draw some power in both EVF and OVF... there's no difference in this respect.)

There used to be a noticeable lag with EVF, too... What was displayed in the EVF was slightly delayed. Manufacturers have worked hard to counteract this and newer models show little lag. However, although it's very little now, there still may be enough delay to make difficult extremely precise timing of certain types of shots that require it.

It's more than just the different types of viewfinders too.

Today most DLSRs with OVF actually have two autofocus systems. First, they use an array of sensors that you see in the viewfinder, plus there's another array of senors embedded in the image sensor itself, to function during Live View and while recording video.

Mirrorless cameras with EVF only have one AF system, the latter type that's embedded in the image sensor.

In older DSLRs and earlier mirrorless the sensor-based AF system relied upon contrast detection and was slow. It was unusable with moving subjects. The DSLRs using the separate array with phase detection AF system were much faster and better tracking subject movement.

Today with recent mirrorless and DSLRs there's now a form of image sensor-based phase detection being used with them too, which makes for much more responsive AF that's more usable with moving subjects. However, it's still not equal to what a top-of-the-line DSLR with a separate phase detection array can do.

And while many mirrorless claim fast frame rates, if you read the fine print you'll notice many specify "with AF locked" or something similar. With continuous AF such as is used for sports and other types of action photography (where you will be using fast frame rates too!), many mirrorless have to slow their frame rates considerably because their AF system cannot "keep up". Where a DSLR with an advanced AF system might be able to shoot at 10 or even 12 frames per second, many mirrorless slow to 4 to 6 fps when used similarly.

Another difference is that OVF-based AF system arrays have between 9 and about 150 individual points, plus are somewhat centered in the image area (the number and layout varies by brand and model). EVF's sensor-based arrays commonly have far more AF points... some have literally thousands... and they tend to cover a larger portion of the image area. Some are very near 100% coverage, which means you can focus on subjects much closer to the edges and corners of the image, if you wish.

Many or most EVF/sensor-based AF systems also have a feature such as "focus peaking", which gives visual indication of what's in focus, making them ideal for use with manual focus lenses. OVFs can't do this.

And, finally, OVF with a separate AF sensor array need to be calibrated to focus the image on the image sensor. This can require fine tuning with a feature such as Micro Focus Adjust on many DSLRs, with whith the user can adjust various lenses for best possible focus accuracy, but it's rarely absolutely perfect, especially with zoom lenses that have become more and more the norm. In contrast, because the mirrorless/EVF camera's AF sensors are embedded right in the image sensor itself, there's no need for this sort of calibration.

So, in summary: In some ways EVF are superior... But in some other ways OVF are still superior. Overall, if shooting sedentary subjects such as posed portraits or products or landscapes or architecture... an EVF will work just as well as an OVF... In fact, the EVF may even be a better choice in some situations. However, if shooting fast action such as sports, wildlife and similar... both for better tracking, faster frame rates and more shots per battery charge... a DSLR with an OVF may still be a better choice.

Something neither can do.... Back in the days of film I used a variety of types and formats of cameras for different purposes. Many rangefinder cameras had optical viewfinders that showed more than 100% of the image area, had a "bright line" indicating the image area, but also visible was some additional portion of the scene outside that area. This was handy for some types of photography because you could see both what you were including in the image, as well as what was slightly outside it that you were excluding. The photographer could then choose to recompose, if they wished. Instead of a viewfinder, some view cameras I used also had a ground glass focusing screen that covered a bit more than the actual image area and could be used similarly. This was a nice feature that isn't the possible with modern EVF or OVF. All I've ever seen, at best show 100% of the image area (some show a little bit less).