I had some fun looking at the image in the DPReview article and pondering change...
Looking at the image on the DPreview website, my guess (I'm an ecologist, and have thought about long-term change to some extent) is that, assuming that the lake in the picture is Lake Tahoe itself, it will remain relatively constant if there isn't a truly catastrophic earthquake. Lake Tahoe is extremely deep, which will keep its shorelines more stable than almost any other lake. There is a human dam, which could come and go, but it only affects the lake level by a tiny bit (the dam is 18 feet high, and the lake is over 1,600 feet deep in places). The area is geologically active, but the lake is over 2 million years old and has survived many earthquakes.
Like the lake, the distant mountains are probably quite stable at the scale the camera is recording (it would take a hell of a rockslide to be visible at that range). I didn't turn up evidence that any of them are active volcanoes, which would be the most likely way they'd get reshaped. The trees on the near shore don't look like bristlecones or anything similarly hardy and slow-growing - they'll probably grow, die and be replaced a couple of times - whether due to fire, pest infestation, logging or climate. Lake Tahoe is actually subject to tsunamis on a frequent enough interval that one could wipe out the forest (it's sufficiently deep, wide and earthquake-prone that it can generate a 10 meter wave, and possibly more). The little clearing in the foreground is almost certainly transient - it's unlikely to survive a 100 year exposure, let alone 1,000.
At first, I dismissed the road in the foreground as likely to disappear, but I realized that many Roman roads are twice that old. Assuming human habitation survives anywhere in the Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe will continue to be attractive to people, and why move the road? Even if parts of it are lost in an earthquake or tsunami, it's likely to be rebuilt in pretty much the same place.