Okay, I'll bite. I like the Fuji X line up but I never make a point to knock mirror system cameras nor advance the notion that EVF (not EFV) is superior. In reality both range finder (direct optical) and then SLR are both superior to EVF in at least 2 of 3 known areas of optical testing. However, EVF are catching up and with some work may offer even more than what our own eyes can detect (such as "night" view for very dim light).
EVF can do things that optical cannot - WYSIWYG evaluation of exposure, for example. Magnification for manual focus peaking, image playback for evaluation... Yes, it's true that optical is superior in certain tests - it's optics vs. electronics, after all. Lag of some sort will always exist (though it may become imperceptible); the resolution of the EVF is not likely to match that of the imaging sensor. The question is whether certain measures of optical superiority outweigh the functional benefits delivered by an electronic display.
Somehow "new photographers" may find themselves at a real disadvantage over us folks that have had film camera experience, all manual lens experience and yeah, actually had to think about what we were doing. My like for much of the Fuji X line is because it offers me a more natural experience akin to past days gone by with its dial options as opposed to just buttons and "in menu" options. In fact, the real success of the Fuji X line came from a rangefinder style camera with a fixed lens and its still in demand (Fuji X 100 series and its later incarnations).
I don't think "new photographers" are at a disadvantage. They may lack our sheer years of shooting experience - experience that certainly counts for something - but a lot of what I learned in the days of film is functionally useless today. I can't take my knowledge of darkroom chemistry and apply it to Photoshop. Our creative goals may not change, but the tools have radically changed. And new tools bring new creative possibilities.
Does the need to think change? No. One needs to be mindful to compose. If one pre-visualizes a result that's not being delivered by auto-focus or auto-exposure, one needs to go manual (and know how). Film experience may be beneficial when going manual, but auto-exposure and auto-focus pre-date digital by decades; plenty of film photographers did not start with (or use) fully-manual or semi-automatic cameras.
And unlike those of us who had to adapt our knowledge to a new technology, a newcomer simply has to immerse him/herself as passionately to this technology as we did when we were new to film. Those who made the transition from analog to digital media had a greater challenge than those who either spent their entire career in analog, or started with digital.
For me, a key takeaway of electronic is that still and motion can be delivered by a single tool. I often forget that. I hold a camera that has a stills form factor and I tend to think almost entirely in terms of shooting stills. There are times that my subject matter would be better conveyed by video (or a combination of stills and video), yet I persist in shooting stills. With today's tools, the decision to shoot video or still should come as fluidly as the choice of depth of focus or shutter speed.
As to the success of the Fuji X line? It has a control interface and configuration that appeals to photographers of a certain age or inclination. Scratch that surface, and they're very much through-the-lens digitals. They don't have a key shortcoming of true rangefinders, where the mechanics of providing framing and parallax compensation for zooms or interchangeable lenses came at a substantial cost and complexity. The models that have fixed lenses have the same size, weight, and cost advantage of any fixed lens camera, since they don't need an interchangeable lens mount - to a large degree, they're yesterday's point-and-shoots with larger sensors and better lenses.
