Interesting -it’s an exciting time to be alive if you love technology. I was tangentially involved in spectroscopy myself. I am a retired electrical engineer and worked for a company back in the 70s that pioneered in Fast Fourier Transform infrared spectrometers (a mouthful). This was one of the first applications of the Cooley-Tuckey FFT algorithm. They used Data General minicomputers to do the calculations. The system was a massive console with computer, and spectrometer hardware. Today it is down to a desktop unit. I had no direct involvement in the FFT aspects or spectrometer hardware. My role was the development of a graphics processor that was the main display device of the system. The company was Digilab, based in Cambridge MA at the time, and was later sold to Biorad. Of course mini computers are gone (neither DG or DEC survived the PC revolution) surpassed now by small single board computers a thousand times more powerful.

Yes, the ingredients to simplify and simultaneously improve cameras are already here. It more a matter of refinements and economics.

I yield on viewfinder issue- many want it, so that is market demand that must be satisfied. Personally I like to verify focus visually and the big screen seems the best way for me. Also the ergonomics of the DSLR may well remain. Sometimes I think things are over-miniaturized, to the point where our hands have trouble with such small sizes.

Interesting -it’s an exciting time to be alive if you love technology. I was tangentially involved in spectroscopy myself. I am a retired electrical engineer and worked for a company back in the 70s that pioneered in Fast Fourier Transform infrared spectrometers (a mouthful). This was one of the first applications of the Cooley-Tuckey FFT algorithm. They used Data General minicomputers to do the calculations. The system was a massive console with computer, and spectrometer hardware. Today it is down to a desktop unit. I had no direct involvement in the FFT aspects or spectrometer hardware. My role was the development of a graphics processor that was the main display device of the system. The company was Digilab, based in Cambridge MA at the time, and was later sold to Biorad. Of course mini computers are gone (neither DG or DEC survived the PC revolution) surpassed now by small single board computers a thousand times more powerful.

Yes, the ingredients to simplify and simultaneously improve cameras are already here. It more a matter of refinements and economics.

I yield on viewfinder issue- many want it, so that is market demand that must be satisfied. Personally I like to verify focus visually and the big screen seems the best way for me. Also the ergonomics of the DSLR may well remain. Sometimes I think things are over-miniaturized, to the point where our hands have trouble with such small sizes.

Boy, you folks have no imagination....

First, as EVFs become better higher resolutions and quicker response times - give the ability to tell when a polarizing filter is at maximum effect, etc.) they will also become separated from the image-capture portion of the system. After all, why think of a camera as a single-piece device? Having the viewfinder wirelessly communicating with the "main body" will allow you to hold the camera at arm's length or off at a distance on a support of some kind (tripod? drone?) to get the best perspective. This, in a sense, is what the Sony stuff was (though I don't think they sell much of them)

For improved imaging, the notion of curved image sensors has been hypothesized. The current flat sensors are a result of the chip manufacturing process (bologna slices of silicon wafers being put through the process) but more ideal for photography purposes would be sensors that follow a spherical curvature - this would eliminate or greatly reduce the need for corrections in the lenses that today must be built to give a flat depth of focus (not depth of field, that's a different thing). This of it like this - a lens has a focal point, right? And focal length is defined as the distance from that focal point to the center of the imaging chip behind it. That's the concept, but of course a 50MM distance from a point describes a sphere - so lens designers must tweak the design to allow for a flat area of projected focus onto the chip (or film - it's always been thus). The point is, if a technique were invented to mass produce imaging ships that follow a spherical curve shape lenses would be far simpler to design.

Technology advances at an exponential rate, something our brains have a hard time imagining...so these things may well become the norm in a decade.

I wonder what cameras will be like in, say, 10 years or perhaps less.

The Point and Shoot is dead, with smartphone cameras eclipsing them. Mirrorless makes complete sense, eliminating clunky mechanical stuff. A next step would be entirely electronic shutters, the mechanical shutter being failure prone and having other limitations. That is entirely likely, only quick dumping of the last sensor image (after transfer to buffer) being required. Think how far sensors and semiconductor technology has gone in 10 years. View finders could be eliminated too, with only a real time sensor generated 3” + display showing state of focus, along with various settings and parameters. The bright sunlight objection can be overcome by a detachable viewing hood. That should result in less eye strain and easier composition of the photo.

What all this adds up to is what might be called the “iCamera”. It will be just a flat device that mounts lenses on its front side, and has its view screen on the back side. It might be around 1/2” thick, enough to have a few buttons or wheels on the sides. Details can be argued about, but the electronic shutter, the elimination of the mirror and separate view finder, all adds up to a drastically simpler and lower cost camera. And a more capable and durable one. One might wonder whether Nikon, Canon or Sony would initiate such a product, of if some upstart company does. The big DSLR companies have a dilemma, whether to be first and capture a new camera paradigm, vs undermine their present markets in DSLR cameras.

The notion of an electronic shutter is not far-fetched to my way of thinking. What is a sensor - it is a collection of microscopic-sized transisters capable of holding a charge. The light from scene falling on the sensor causes it to take on some charge state and this charge state when processed through the camera firnware creates an image file. What do see in the EVF or LCD screen - does that info come from the sensor chrarge state. If so, then why not just save the charge state. Or does the camera have two sensors - one to supply the EVF & LCD visuals and one to make the image file. They would have to be in the same place like a sandwich, yes.