I'm not even going to bother calling this one a "Monday musing." It's amazing the havoc the first week of a new job can cause in one's posting schedule.... Ah, well.

What's been on my mind lately is the future of digital cameras, particularly the future of DSLRs. Where will cameras head in the next few years? Does the DSLR have a future at all? Hasselblad certainly thinks so, but I have to say I'm not so convinced. Once we get past our nostalgic attachment to the SLR form factor because that's what we think a camera should look like, a new realm of possibilities opens up. Of course, the philosophy of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" might argue for keeping the DSLR just because it works and people understand it. I'd argue, though, that there are several things wrong with it, from a digital point of view.

First, a mirror and spring mechanism adds unnecessary mechanical complexity to a digital device. As the quality and manufacturability of live capture sensors improves, we may fairly quickly reach a point where we no longer need a mechanical shutter. Why keep a mechanical viewfinder? And as LCD and technology improves, we'll see the advantages of analog displays disappear, too. Why bother with mirrors and prisms if we can capture the live image from the primary sensor and display it in real time? We've already seen EVF hit $1000 and APS-sized sensors. As EVFs improve, the EVF should continue it's climb into better cameras.

Weight and cost are also considerations. Mirrors, prisms, ground glasses and viewfinder lenses are heavy and good glass is expensive. Why not lose that weight, and, as EVFs become more cost effective, that expense?

Then, too, there's noise. Most people don't care what their cameras sound like, but digital has been a godsend for wildlife photography: most of the advantage of a speedwinder; none of the noise. Get yourself a remote and a camera that doesn't even have a shutter click and, well, use your powers for good, eh?