How long before DSLRs become extinct?

Today I was shown a shot (on an LCD screen) of a Kingfisher with a fish in its beak, the guy had zoomed in about 4X on the LCD to almost fill it with the bird before showing it to me, and it looked very sharp!

And what bit of miraculous kit did he use? A Bridge Camera with an equivalent focal length of 800mm (Including optical zoom)

Given the advancement in sensor technology and lens design will we eventually see the demise of interchangable lens cameras?

No - because whatever can be achieved with a bridge camera with a huge zoom, a better result could be obtained with a DSLR with a long lens (zoom or prime).

Most people are always looking for better (part of the human condition) and the reason most keep on upgrading.

I can get even more than that with digital zoom

I like the feel and handling of the DSLR, bridge are good though but not better in that. Also optics will always be better on interchangable systems.

Personally I think DSLRs in their current state won't exist for much longer - mirrors are on the way out & EVFs are coming for sure, the technology is still being perfected but it's getting better all the time. Interchangeable lenses are here to stay though, probably mainly due to the profits that manufacturers make from them!!

Pentax's old partner Samsung is very shrewd at spotting new market opportunities and I think it's the reason they've left the "pure" DSLR market

Simon

For the lower end market EVF might be good but not the high end, they need the speed of the OVF because EVF will always lag behind a bit.
Also phase AF is still better then Contrast AF when it comes to speed.
I've a personal problem with them because i shoot with both eyes open and since EVF lags behind my eyes see two different motions and i get sick after a while...


[s. pne thing i would love to see is a translucant LCD in the viewfinder so you can get information on the image itself, that would be the best of both worlds.

I owned a Minolta A200 'bridge camera' before a Canon G9.

These cameras are not a patch on Pentax DSLR's. They are very poor at high ISO, have very limited EV range often with blown highlights. The optics can't compare and they certainly can't match the speed of my KR.

You certainly can't judge photos based on what's on the rear LCD screen.

I wouldn't want to go back to electronic video viewfinders or rear screens for taking my photos.

As to the future I'm very happy with my Pentax kit and look forward tot he day when I can afford the flagship models!

No matter how good little sensors get, they'll always be a bit behind bigger ones (and they'll never allow the same dof control)... same probably goes with lenses. I think 'roughly DSLR sized' cameras are probably here to stay... whether they have a mirror or not. They're just the 'right' size if you want to use certain big fast lenses. Big cameras also still seem to have a cache with people who consider themselves 'serious' or 'pro' photographers. Big lenses - even more so!




Ever gone a bit too far shaving your sideburns?

Not completely but I foresee there will be far fewer in the future. SLR buyers will still exist but I imagine their numbers will be similar to the number of people who buy large format field cameras today - very much a tiny niche in the camera market.

In 20 years most people will be using thought-controlled flying cameras the size of a credit card that are better at spotting photo opportunities than photographers and will automatically blur the faces of anyone not recognised as having signed a model release (as held on the central government database). Shooting modes will include sickly kittens and luke warm tapioca pudding amongst 14m+ others. Lenses will have effective focal lengths of 1-10,000mm at a constant f/1.0 and will be constructed of translucent flubber with an artificial intelligence roughly equivalent to 2.7 giraffes. Resolution will be at 50 Terapixels and ISO levels will remain completely noise free until 1,600,000,000. Flash will no longer be required for most circumstances but will sync at up to 1/24,000sec for fill-in. Viewfinders will also be redundant as images will be taken automatically at all focal lengths at all times in a 360 degree sphere - you simply tell the camera what sort of shot you fancy seeing and it finds it for you. Depth of field can be infinitely adjusted by moving the sensor (so small it is no longer visible to the human eye) to make automatic bokeh panoramas. People will still come onto PU to moan that they're not full frame and their treasured FA35-80 doesn't offer the same angle of view as it did on their MZ-30. They will be drowned out by people who think Pentax is doomed because the new Canon has two sickly kitten modes.

I'll still be debating whether to upgrade from the K10D...

I personally think the DSLR will be around for a very long time, when people develop a hobby and a passion they buy better kit as they progress. I don't think people will keep upgrading Bridge cameras. for people interested in Photography there is something about a DSLR regardless of brand which makes the camera feel special, I think deciding on what lens to use and the choice to do so is why people will keep buying DSLR's
Of course some people love a big lens on the end of their camera, so for those people the Bridge camera will never have the same appeal Lol.

That's a coincidence Bill, I started out my photography interest with the A200 and to be honest I found it pretty good, as you say high-iso was quite poor but in good light it produced excellent images, I still have one or two on my website!!

I also quite liked the idea of the EVF, although the A2 EVF was superior to the A200 - live histogram in the viewfinder and being able to see the scene as it actually appears were very useful and as that technology moves on I'd certainly welcome that ability in a DSLR.

The other thing I remember is that the A200 fixed lens (28-200) was very well respected and when I first bought my K10D with the kit lens I was quite disappointed with the initial results - quite a few bridge camera fixed lenses outperform the kit lenses supplied with DSLRs.

I basically agree with Hefty. DSLRs won't last much longer IMO. Another 20 years maybe. By then every mobile phone will have some incredible video camera in it, where every single frame will be better than current dslr IQ. They'll have tiny liquid lenses which reshape themselves to change focal length just like an eye does. And they will be noise-free at some ridiculously high ISO.

My thinking too

Naah, never gonna happen, there are physical limits. Besides it would make the whole photography experience utterly futile.

John

I think d-slrs will eventually die. maybe ten years.
not sure how long, but probably sooner than people want to believe.
4/3 type, and other mirrirless and evf's will take over the "enthusiast" to "prosumer" level d-slr's and cell phones will kill off the "compact" and "amatuer" class cameras, and there will still be pro level cams, but I'm reluctant to hope that the d-slr configuration will hold out for long...

DSLRs won't die for a very long time. They are needed for a variety of professional work that an EVF or screen are just not suitable for.

After all, we can still buy folding cameras, rangefinder cameras, large format cameras....it takes a very long time indeed for a camera type to disappear.

The exceptions are the small amateur formats that didn't stay the disatance, such as 126, 110 and Disc. These all had serious technical limitations.