How long before DSLRs become extinct?

Still using a Rotel RA-971 MkII with B&W 601 S3's, sounds glorious

John

I can't remember a greater rate of change in how we achieve the photography that we achieve than in the last 10 years, but I'd have to say that most of that is due to some form of computer programming rather than different hardware design.

Moore's Law sure has interesting ramifications for photography. Surely in 5 years time it's possible to conceive that most people will instead be shooting a 5 second 4928x3264 vid, picking the best frame, enhancing, cropping and uploading/emailing in camera. That sort of scenario really can't be far away.

One problem, that whole slowness of EVF needs a new generation solution before that changes at all levels, especially where timing matters. HDMI has a lag of about 1/4-1/2 second.

I hope Pentax brings an aps-c sized sensor in a Q styled body... as long as they keep the kmount, i would not care if it was a little thicker than other competitors models.
speaking of Q, you gotta see this:
link

There´s very, very little in the way, technology-wise, of getting rid of DSLRs and replacing them with mirrorless cameras. The biggest problem is that C & N have far too much invested in their current systems to want to change to a new one. The lens line-ups are massive, and all designed for DSLRs.

So far, only Samsung are taking lenses and cameras seriously in the EVIL market, but they´re held back by lack of promotion & not being taken seriously by photographers (rightly or wrongly). Sony are only interested in getting people with P&S cameras to buy them. Oly & Pana are only just beginning to come out with serious lenses, but most of them cost double what they should, and the small size of 4/3 will never be overcome.

The way is wide open for a mirrorless camera with an APS-C sensor, good lenses and a photographer-oriented design (buttons, ergonomics, advanced features). There´s no need for a mirrorless camera to be smaller, if that means is less comfortable to use. Pentax are ideally placed to bring it to the market, but instead seem determined to be left behind, wasting money on this Q nonsense. Development costs would rapidly be paid off by savings in exactly-manufactured & expensive mirror-boxes & penta-mirrors / -prisms. AF problems would be a thing of the past.

I agree with most of what you say except... the Q being non-sense. I think it is a fine camera that will target both the upscale p&s shooters and possibly some 4/3's buyers looking for small sized cameras.... it will find it's niche and be well liked by those that can afford it.

but yeah, if a kmount evil comes, I will buy... if not, I may switch camcorders to the sony nex vg10 series and just buy an adaptor for my Pentax glass.... it may be some time before I buy another pentax d-slr.... if ever.

But the EVF also cost money.
Also to use the camera you must use a LCD screen and that means the sensor is also on and the processor is working meaning it sucks the engery out of the battery like a vampire suck the blood out of a virgin.
Also your sensor is constantly used so it gets warm and generate noise.
Also a shutter is pretty much a must for bigger sensors and because the shutter must first be closed and then be opened again there is an extra shutter lag.
Also the view on the LCD lags a bit.
Also there is no Phase AF only contrast AF, while that is more accurate it can't see if you need to focus backward or forward and by how much making focusing slower and focus tracking less accurate.

EVIL can be great fun but aren't DSLR replacement at the moment...

But why must it be EVIL?
If a DSLR doesn't use his mirror so live view then it's the same as a EVIL camera right or am i missing the point?

take the mirror, mechanical shutter and pentaprism out, save money while increasing reliability.... your prism is blacked out while the mirror is up, vibrations from mirror slap, focussing in dim light, all issues addressed by an evf and or live view...
Battery and heat issues and even evf quality are all issues being addressed... soon Evil class will surpass slr design, just as surely as digital surpassed film... unavoidable...

so if you could get k5 image quality, cinema quality video, in a less expensive camera body.... why bother with a d-slr at that point? Panasonic has already released 4/3 class evils that surpass many d-slrs af performance, casio locked down the highspeed shutter.... Fuji has a optical/ lcd hybrid rangefinder.... how long do you think it will take for one camera to incorporate enough features to lay waste to the k5?

it may not be for everybody, but there is a new breed of multimedia shooters out there that want one body that gives them the best of both thier video camcorders and D-slrs... and I believe it is coming. If you don't believe me, ask some of the other regulars here how long I was spewing off (in the face of unbelievers) about video capable d-slrs before everybody wound up buying them....

I dare ask... would you be shooting with Pentax or Nikon or Canon d-slrs at all if the Panasonic g series Evil had an aps-c or ff 35mm sensor?

All of these projected advances will probably come to pass eventually, but there will always be somebody who needs even higher IQ for some specialised purpose. It will just be a smaller market - akin to medium format today.

I'm not sure the DOF control will be such a big issue. There is already software which makes a fair attempt at replicating the effects of a shallow DOF, and you can bet that given a few more years to develop it will get a lot better.

There may come a time when every image we take is sharp from foreground to background straight out of our (small sensor) cameras and then if we want a shallower depth of field we'll achieve it to perfection in PP with a couple of mouse clicks.

Kinda takes some of the challenge out of it, but then arguably every advancement in camera technology which makes things easier does that to some extent.

See my comments above Don, those things will surely improve but they will always be there though and so a DSLR will be better at them.

For photography i don't see at what an EVIL is better than a DSLR.
And some problems you name can also be solved, also who knows what they can do over some years.
I don't think it's far fetch that they can make a surface reflective or translucent by running a current through it and there are already LCD shutters so a DSLR can also be make fully electronical but keeping the mirror and optical viewfinder.

the question is... (and the market will answer); "How much does it cost?"
vhs did not beat betamax on quality...
and dvd did not beat vhs on durability...
and blue ray was f'd before it ever got started by direct downloads...
you cannot ever discount the tech that gives you the best combination of ease of use and cost vs quality...

Was that a question for me?
Yeah because i don't see EVIL as an DSLR replacement for photography.

It's a bit like people saying that those tablets things will replace books and magazines. I think they might though but surely not now, i just can't look at those LCD screen for long while reading because they tire my eyes while i read to relax...
I must say those e-books are quite nice to read though, they just need colour but still... there is something about having a book in your hands though and because of that books will be around for quite a while just like SLR camera's.

say that when the environmental lobbiests get there way and cutting down a tree to make paper to print a book winds up costing so much, the consumer has to pay $1000.00 retail for a 32 page comic book!

Well EVIL have an EVF, how much does that cost?

Besides that, when i'll go out shooting all day how many batteries will i need with an evil camera and how many with a DSLR... how much will those extra batteries cost me.
And what will the headache cost me...?