Thom Hogan recently has been talking about the problems that he sees with modern cameras that are coming out of Japan, and Asia in general for that matter. So I think the question is, do we need to reinvent the DSLR? My first response is no, the DSLR systems of today are fine, but wait, are they really? I think we can all list things about modern DSLRs that we do and do not like, but which of these sticks out in our minds the most, what we like about them, or what we dislike?
Do we need to go back to the route of the camera, something simple, without hundreds of menu options and settings? Sometimes I love shooting film, simply because there are not hundreds of settings to change, just four or five at the most. Simplify, go back to having just a few buttons, and two or three switches at the most? ISO, WB, drive mode, shooting mode (P/S/A/M only!), Single or Continuous AF, exposure comp, shutter release, dials, that's it. Even that list has a lot of buttons and switches! The menu system would be used to control picture output (RAW/JPEG, colour space), and liveview/video, nothing more.
With all that in mind, consider the following. Would you like a camera with the power and flexibility of say the D300 or D3s in a small, tough, lighter body, somewhere in the size range between the D3000 and the D90? If such a camera existed, where could these cameras fit in the current lineup? Could the camera makes have three cameras in their lineup, and nothing more? A light plastic body (D40 build quality), then a mid range camera, (slight better than D90 build quality), and a high end camera (D3 build quality) all in one body size/type? Accessories would work with all the cameras, meaning things like battery grips, batteries, cable release, GPS, etc. The only real difference would be the sensor (DX, two consumer grade cameras/FX, High End camera), firmware (wireless flash control on mid-range/high end), build quality and price.
Okay, I think that is enough rambling for now. ;-)