What camera advancement would you like to see?

When you look at new cameras and technological advancements that are made, which WOULD you like to see that you haven't seen manufactures make yet? 

Wireless transfer speed of photos to computer 

Yea. WIFI just doesn't have enough transfer speed, and why I use a tether cable most of the time. The WIFI link, for me, takes about 4X as long, 2-3 seconds for tether, and 8-10 seconds for WIFI. It works, but just too slow.

Charley

Lens size and weight reduced would be a nice win for me.  

Hmmmm, good question.  It would be nice to see more seamless real time transfers and perhaps longer lasting batteries.  

Finn wrote: When you look at new cameras and technological advancements that are made, which WOULD you like to see that you haven't seen manufactures make yet? 

I MIGHT shoot less film if someone would make a digital camera with interchangeable viewfinders and focusing screens.

I'd like to see all frequencies of light captured at each photoreceptor. That would instantly triple the resolution of images captured through a Bayer Filter.

I was happy with my first digital Canon 350D

New cameras have so much crap on it I do not use. 
You need to study a book!
What about a back to basics camera where you have max two pages of options in the menu. 
The rest I will do post.

Stabilization in low light and doing away with the need of using a tripod 

Razky wrote:

Finn wrote: When you look at new cameras and technological advancements that are made, which WOULD you like to see that you haven't seen manufactures make yet? 

I MIGHT shoot less film if someone would make a digital camera with interchangeable viewfinders and focusing screens.

Why would you need more than one viewfinder? 

Cheaper and smaller f/2.8 lens selections

Don Granger wrote:

Razky wrote:

Finn wrote: When you look at new cameras and technological advancements that are made, which WOULD you like to see that you haven't seen manufactures make yet? 

I MIGHT shoot less film if someone would make a digital camera with interchangeable viewfinders and focusing screens.

Why would you need more than one viewfinder? 

I'm spoiled. I like the options of eye level, sports-finder, waist level or high-magnification (6X) finders,

Razky wrote:

Don Granger wrote:

Razky wrote:

Finn wrote: When you look at new cameras and technological advancements that are made, which WOULD you like to see that you haven't seen manufactures make yet? 

I MIGHT shoot less film if someone would make a digital camera with interchangeable viewfinders and focusing screens.

Why would you need more than one viewfinder? 

I'm spoiled. I like the options of eye level, sports-finder, waist level or high-magnification (6X) finders,

You talking about binoculars?   

James F wrote:

Razky wrote:

Don Granger wrote:

Razky wrote:

Finn wrote: When you look at new cameras and technological advancements that are made, which WOULD you like to see that you haven't seen manufactures make yet? 

I MIGHT shoot less film if someone would make a digital camera with interchangeable viewfinders and focusing screens.

Why would you need more than one viewfinder? 

I'm spoiled. I like the options of eye level, sports-finder, waist level or high-magnification (6X) finders,

You talking about binoculars?

No, I'm talking about the viewfinders I use on my Nikon F cameras.

Razky wrote:

James F wrote:

Razky wrote:

Don Granger wrote:

Razky wrote:

Finn wrote: When you look at new cameras and technological advancements that are made, which WOULD you like to see that you haven't seen manufactures make yet? 

I MIGHT shoot less film if someone would make a digital camera with interchangeable viewfinders and focusing screens.

Why would you need more than one viewfinder? 

I'm spoiled. I like the options of eye level, sports-finder, waist level or high-magnification (6X) finders,

You talking about binoculars?

No, I'm talking about the viewfinders I use on my Nikon F cameras.

They are swappable?