I find the 'Double-Slit Experiment' to be very weird, and it makes me wonder if we really understand everything going on with the methods of observation, like maybe it isn't the act of observing it that has any effect but the way in which we do it, and our normal perceptions just make it seem like observation doesn't directly impact any normal thing when it actually does. For example if the act of capturing the light in a photograph has some impact on the things emitting the light, not because there is an observation but because it acts as some kind of vacuum effect. I think there was some Native-American thing where they were against photography because they decided it's taking a part of your soul, maybe they're closer to the truth than people think? :)
The problem is that there is (currently) and I'm not sure possible at all, no way to observe anything without the presence of photons / the 'thing occurring' affecting something else and therefore it wouldn't seem possible to observe something without changing the system itself. It's not so much that the camera 'affects the object' its that in order to see the object through the camera there must be photons (or light if you will) as a camera, our eyes, cannot work without photons. Now you might ask, well maybe we can improve this by observing the effect rather than observing the system and in this case we get the superposition of all possible states which corresponds to (c).
But yeah it's all pretty interesting (and yeah those Native-Americans are definitely right, your photons get captured by that camera [but probably less than by being seen by other people]), hopefully some new people come along and make some pretty big discoveries, the biggest one currently is being either able to combine quantum mechanics and special relativity, or explaining gravity in quantum mechanics.