If you could change one thing about the "state of photography", what would it be?

Hopefully a fun and interesting topic......If you somehow had the power to change one thing when it comes to photography and where it stands today, what would it be? There is no correct answer here, only your opinion.
For instance, some people loathe the onset of digital photography (wishing it never happened) while others hope for technology that will allow digital ISO's to cleanly see in virtual darkness, plus everything in between and at the edges.
If you could be granted one wish pertaining to photography (not a personal wish but an industry wide wish either backtracking technology or adding to it), what would it be and why?

You specified, specifically, a change in technology. So, my answer would be the re-introduction of eye-tracking autofocus.

This would be far, far better than the old eye-tracking AF systems. This would allow you to look at something thru the viewfinder, then "tell the camera" that this is the object you want to focus on. The camera would "remember" the object using technology much like face recognition. Then, whenever that object was in the frame, the camera would focus precisely on that object.

So, if I "told" the camera to recognize a butterfly, the camera would focus exactly on the butterfly, no matter how quickly it was fluttering around, and no matter how far away it got - even if it was a tiny speck in the frame, that is what the camera would focus on.

Better yet, I would tell the camera to focus on the butterfly's eyeball - then, when the butterfly was close enough to occupy a good portion of the frame, the camera would not just pick any part of the butterfly - it would focus precisely on the eyeball, just like I told it to. Yes, even if the butterfly was blitzing erratically all around the frame. As long as I can keep it in the viewfinder, the camera will focus on it.

This would completely eliminate the need to focus & recompose.

It would be especially helpful when I use long focal lengths - at 900mm the depth of field is incredibly shallow, regardless of what aperture I'm using. Sometimes, if I accidentally focus on a bird's beak instead of on its eye, I miss the focus and the shot is trash. Being off by just a centimeter is the difference between an awesome shot and a wasted opportunity. Frankly, my motor skills are often just not good enough to keep the little red box on exactly what I want it to be on, especially with a quickly moving subject.

This new generation eye-detect AF would mean many, many more keepers! Of course, it would be completely over-rideable, if the user chose to use a different focus mode.

There are many other changes I would love to see happen - but you said only one, and I think this would help more than anything else.

I quite like the idea of Canon introducing the in-camera IS, no idea if this would be worse or good to be honest though.
Also, not really a technological thing here but definitely something that came with digital. People who moan that digital is terrible and that film is better... Why not enjoy both!

The ability to load Lightroom presets into the camera to process images in camera.

How about if I change not the photography sector, but the perception of it? I would change the perception of the snobbish branch of the art community to stop seeing photography as the unwanted step-child. (I'll never know why they still fail to understand that composing and crafting a fine photograph is much harder than sitting on your ass in your underwear painting anything you can imagine )

On a technical level, probably sensor range to match or exceed that of the human eye.

I agree with Dan about improving sensors. We have a wonderful array of bodies and lenses to choose from since they are the "sizzle" in photography. You can hold them in your hands and everyone wants the best. I've got the hardware, give me a sensor with a better SN ratio and more dynamic range.

The economy to get better so I can get more gigs.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #16157750
The ability to load Lightroom presets into the camera to process images in camera.

That wouldn't do you much good without Lightroom being in there too. Maybe Canon will buy Adobe or Adobe will buy Canon or Google will buy both of them. Now that would be interesting.

tzalman wrote in post #16158082
That wouldn't do you much good without Lightroom being in there too. Maybe Canon will buy Adobe or Adobe will buy Canon or Google will buy both of them. Now that would be interesting.

For basic raw to JPG conversion you wouldn't need Lightroom in there. You'd just need something that could read the settings and apply them to the raw file.

Improvement of digital projection capability to 8Megapixel minimum, instead of the farcical 2Megapixel HDTV we are limited to today. You can't even project at 2004 technology levels (8Megapixels) and we have 20Megapixel cameras. Pathetic digital projection, compared to what we could achieve with even puny 135 format slide projection.

ISO 12,800 with virtually no noise.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #16157825
I would change the perception of the snobbish branch of the art community to stop seeing photography as the unwanted step-child. . . .

On a technical level, probably sensor range to match or exceed that of the human eye.

My vote goes to both of these.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #16157825
On a technical level, probably sensor range to match or exceed that of the human eye.

The dynamic range of the human eye is not that terrific! It adapts via the iris size changes as it moves across a scene, it takes 20-30 minutes to truly become sensitive to very low light levels after exposure to bright light. It has over 20 stops of range only thru adaption of the iris and chemical changes, not instantaneously able to span that range! At any given time, the eye can only see a range of 1000:1, or about 10 stops of light.

whuband wrote in post #16157995
I agree with Dan about improving sensors. We have a wonderful array of bodies and lenses to choose from since they are the "sizzle" in photography. You can hold them in your hands and everyone wants the best. I've got the hardware, give me a sensor with a better SN ratio and more dynamic range.

I'd want
a full frame sigma merryll sensor
In a good AF body like 1dx
size smaller than pentax k1000

I also want them to stop shaping DSLRs as if we're still using film.

Wilt wrote in post #16158370
The dynamic range of the human eye is not that terrific! It adapts via the iris size changes as it moves across a scene, it takes 20-30 minutes to truly become sensitive to very low light levels after exposure to bright light. It has over 20 stops of range only thru adaption of the iris and chemical changes, not instantaneously able to span that range! At any given time, the eye can only see a range of 1000:1, or about 10 stops of light.

Do current cams actually get 10 stops?

I'm lucky if I get 6 stops that dont look like mush when printed.