The end of the DSLR?

[andy153]

A bit of news that claims this could be the end of cameras as we know them. I don't think so.... do you?
LINK

[Arthur53]

By a sensor that fits "normal cameras" I read as compact camera. Dont see why an all-in-one camera will end cameras as we know them. If demand for DSLRs someone will make them.

[surfg1mp]

Who knows what will happen........tech is progressing so fast now adays.

Who would have thought digital cameras would take over from film cameras when they were first introduced.

[walwyn]

I thought that SLR was a function of mirror, lens, and viewfinder. That the d bit refered to digital recording rather than recording on film. Whatever sensor they put in the place of the traditional film plane it will still be an SLR.

[Alex1994]

This won't kill the single-lens reflex, which is a way of looking through the lens. Whatever sensor you put in, you still want to look through the lens.

In fact, how does it end cameras 'as we know them'? As far as I can see this is just a better sensor, just more megapixels. At most it'll merge camcorders and cameras into one device, but with HD video we were going that way anyway.

[miketoll]

Personally I want to take still images only with no interest in video. That means I want to take one shot or at most a short burst of three or four frames at a "decisive" moment, not take a video burst and then trawl through many near identical shots to pick the best single frame out of a video burst. Any camera with this technology would have to have single shot mode built in before I would ever consider one, in essence it is merely the next step in the obvious combining of video and still photography. Even if this technology takes off reflex cameras with inter changeable lenses will still be needed.

[steve2005]

I must agree with Mike, my interests are in stills photography not movies.
These developers, unfortunately, never see the creative part of photography as an issue. Again it is something that has come out of development in a different field.
I have both dslr and digital movie cameras and the movie camera hardly ever sees the light of day.

[walwyn]

at most a short burst of three or four frames at a "decisive" moment, not take a video burst and then trawl through many near identical shots to pick the best single frame out of a video burst.

My FZ30 has a burst mode where you get continuous shots at a speed that the card can keep up with. After the initial quick burst that turns out to be a 2 or 2.5 a second. This can be very useful hand holding in low light levels. There were shots taken in Egyptian Temples that I'd not have got if I only had 1 - 5 shot burst mode. Same is true of some shots I've taken in English Heritage buildings etc.

[miketoll]

It is true a burst can be very useful for taking shots in low light, I often take several in a burst when doing hand held macro or low light and usually the sharpest is two or three shots in to the burst. This is however very different to video which is what? 20+ frames a second? No thanks to that unless it is for very specialised photography, a new camera would have to provide single shot, 3fps and say 7fps as now in addition to any video capability which makes it a development of to days cameras rather than threatening the DSLR concept.

[walwyn]

The F2 had a 14fps motor drive.