Oof, Clavius, maybe people would buy it, but the last thing I really want is my camera to be hackable, crashing, going offline, getting poor signal, subject to local telecomm monopolies, etc, etc.
It's not *all* rosy about over-computerising things. And there's a tendency not to not be able to turn those kinds of 'features' off, not to mention of course the planned or incidental obsolescence about even ordinary cell phones that always seems to happen. (I think I'd rather attach those functions to a smallish Ipad sort of unit, to handle those things with a somewhat bigger screen, etc. )
Originally posted by TaoMaas I think digital cameras went through the same kind of exponential growth that computers went through when they first became popular. If you went even 2-3 years without an upgrade, you were left pretty far behind. Now things have leveled off and you don't have to have the latest and greatest. I think the same thing has happened with digital cameras. People stopped buying because they no longer had to every few years. I'd be very surprised if DSLRs go away, but I don't doubt that their share of the overall camera market will diminish. As others have said, they'll probably go back to being an enthusiast's tool.
This is a thing that people seem surprised about when they talk about camera tech like it's a corporate profit/marketshare race alone. The tech itself seems to be in a plateau whereas for years it's been racing up the ladder to try and equal film cameras in some respects.
A lot of the entry-level DSLRs would be sold to people who were tired of the *limitations* of smaller cameras (notably shutter lag, missed focus, just things that'd cause them to miss or be unable to get shots. Basic things that don't get a lot of press or advertising in the tech race of specs and features.) As the technology's gotten smarter at things like that, there's a certain segment who simply aren't driven to think they 'need a real camera' so, (These are usually the types who tend to approach me for help with such issues out there, they'd be motivated by little frustrations like that, usually along with at least enough interest in photography to be 'I always thought I should take some lessons sometime.' There's fewer of them these days cause a lot of little cameras work just fine for them, and plenty are satisfied with what their phones can do, more or less. )
As for DSLRs themselves, a lot for one thing, depends on the economy, (whether people's wants are enough for a sale when something older will do) and where the tech goes.
As for the tech, I suspect that we'll see DSLRs affected by some new *materials* that are coming down the pipeline, particularly as regards size, pattery power per size, how much space the extra computing takes, etc. Just having a mirror box doesn't mean even a full frame camera with a full viewfinder *has* to be much bigger than an ME Super,
strictly speaking, so the size differential is probably going to end up lessening sooner or later: (Since compacts can only get so small before becoming awkward for human hands,) Various thin-panel LCDs, new batteries and processors, smaller motors and magnets, etc are bound to find their way in.
And if Pentax's new line is any indication, they're rather redefining 'entry-level' as more like 'less expensive enthusiast-level DSLR' as in not so much aiming for competing with the point and shoot market. Which is to say, good for students or people interested in more control and dabbling in more-serious attention to the craft. There aren't a whole lot of reasons I'd be grumbling about anything if I were using a K-30 or K-50, myself. (Even if there's plenty reason for me to prefer a K-3 or K-5) That sort of thing has a great deal to do with why I'm shooting Pentax in the first place, ...this K-20D was the most-serviceable, least-dumbed-down, generally serious-shooter-oriented rig I could afford, back when the prices were quite low. That kind of thing's an equation that appeals to the starving-artist and student-photogs-with-spending-money market, SLRs still seem to rule for sports and wildlife for the forseeable future, whatnot. So I don't expect the market's just going to disappear: I would however expect the downspecced and chintsy-feeling-sold-with-kit-lens Rebels and the like to do a fade, (Maybe with mirrorless EVF versions to be the big-box-stepping-stone to the full sized cameras or something.)
I'd actually like to think that the general trend for people not to need such frequent upgrades as the technology progressed actually might lend itself to cameras being marketed more like they used to: ie, for a longer haul. Especially after some more-frugal times, maybe we'll see more of the old expectation that a customer would expect a camera would last at least as long as a car, if not indefinitely.