The original Yokogawa CSU10 had a very mean field of view, but the double disc lenslet system meant that the camera was looking at a black disc with holes showing the returning light. Single disc systems have the whole blast of excitation light hitting the camera side of the spinning disc, but they are much less claustrophobic so in my opinion the benefits outweigh the cost. A colleague had an earlier CARV system with a cooled CCD camera. He decided to upgrade to EMCCD and was disappointed with the slight improvement in signal to noise. It was still better than the old camera, but not by much.
Ocular viewing was great, but grad students tended to just use the screen, so managing without is certainly practical with modern cameras. Back in 1994, the camera technology was so far behind the Meridian, and there were relatively few ocular-only applications. It could screen 100 Arabidopsis seedlings per hour, but the grad students could only handle 2 hour shifts at that pace. We semi-automated with our PathwayHT (CARV) system for similar throughput and saved data. That instrument is no longer supported, so we have to use a Zeiss 880 Airyscan Fast, which isn’t designed for screening but does have the speed and sensitivity.