This content has been marked as final. Show 17 replies
DPReview shows details of "all" digital cameras; check out there.
I had the Nikon Coolpix 8800, that could create raw, JPEG, even TIFF. Sony's DSC-R1 (announced 2005-10) too creates raw. Though such cameras are not called "point and shoot" but "prosumer" or "SLR-like", and they are not so tiny as a true P&S.
Honestly, I don't see the point. Those cameras you are referring to have usually tiny lenses, minisculous sensors with trillions of pixels; the image quality does not justify any raw processing.
IMO raw is not for enhancing low quality images but to bring out everything from high quality.
Actually I like RAW on my venerable (in digicam terms) Canon G3 - it allows me to chose to process the images at something other than the dayglo colours/oversharpened hi contrast settings that the in-camera processor imposes on jpegs. I shoot 80 per cent of my shots with that camera in RAW (not least because Canon's auto white balance is sadly lacking under many lighting conditions, and it's a lot easier to fix in RAW for those of us who have not upgraded to CS3)
Sadly the G7, Canon's latest offering in that camera series has done away with RAW - if you can find a G6 still sitting in a box somewhere, that might be a reasonable bet.
> Honestly, I don't see the point. Those cameras you are referring to have usually tiny lenses, minisculous sensors with trillions of pixels; the image quality does not justify any raw processing.
For most of these cameras I would agree, but the OP as well as myself would like to find the exception. As technology moves on, surely someone will deliver a P&S for which the dynamic range is better than 8bit JPEG in-camera, and worthy of RAW development.
In fact we may be there already with the new Canons (S5 IS & G7), for which I was equally disappointed that they do not deliver RAW ... what a shame! I thought one possibility might be the Russian firmware hack that can deliver RAW data, but I see that it doesn't support the newest Canons.
Another disappointment was the Leica D-Lux 3 (and its Panasonic cousin), for which even the RAW files present smeared data in the shadows. Again, what a shame ... this is a wonderful little camera!
Good luck, and don't forget to share your findings :)
The majority of photographers don't want to be bothered with such nuissances. Look at the development: "print your picture directly from the camera", etc.
When I want to print out something, I have to extra beg not to make any adjustments, croppings, to turn off auto sharpening, etc. I returned several large pano-prints, because they did not print exactly the size I wanted to; they thought it is better to crop it here or there, sharpened, etc.
Anyway, most camera owners want to have it simple, and processing raw data is at the far end of the spectrum. One has to realize, that even though SLRs cost several times (many times) as much as a P&S, the big revenue maker is the P&S.
Add to this, that japs are generally suckers in designing firmware and software. It is hair-raising, what they are doing. They seem to be challenged by the thought, that someone wants to have some freedom, except if one pays a few thousand $ for the joy not to be forced by the firmware to go a certain way.
Your grasp of the camera market seems to be on a par with your understanding of the Japanese culture and their contributions to technology. That you feel the need to use a pejorative in a setting like this also reflects a certain mind set.
As the industry moves further away from film, and you have the casual picture taker replacing their film camera with a digital when it dies, the digital market will reflect more of the old paradigm. The snap shooters going for the point and shoots and the more serious photographers buying SLR's. Just as the point and shoot film cameras lacked a lot of the controls of the SLR's, so it will go in digital. Regardless of marketing nonsense, there is no industry toiling to produce a product just for YOU.
If RAW is a primary consideration, pick up a nice used camera that had that feature. If the control of RAW processing is what your after, ACR4 lets you process JPG's. Just turn off the in-camera processing parameters. If you're after absolute image quality, you'll be using an SLR anyway, eh?
While the numbers are higher for P&S sales, there is much better profit in SLR sales, what with lenses and accessories and all.
I'm also curious why you would have problems with your prints. You certainly don't take your files to a discount joint for printing, do you? Any professional custom lab should have no problem following any printing directions you would give them.
I dont agree that most photographers do not want to bother with getting the best result possible. point and shooters are generally not true photographers,and for them going the extra mile is too much trouble, and that is why they are only ever going to get metiocre results.
<Donald_Reese@adobeforums.com> wrote in message <br />news:firstname.lastname@example.orgNXanI...<br />>I dont agree that most photographers do not want to bother with getting the <br />>best result possible. point and shooters are generally not true <br />>photographers,and for them going the extra mile is too much trouble, and <br />>that is why they are only ever going to get metiocre results.<<br /><br />That's a little extreme. I'm a non-SLR person myself who takes photography <br />very seriously. I believe that non-SLR cameras are the logical successors <br />to DSLRs, and would not consider my images to be meaty ochre.<br />-- <br />Mike Russell<br />www.curvemeister.com/forum/
> point and shooters are generally not true photographers,and for them going the extra mile is too much trouble, and that is why they are only ever going to get metiocre results.
Exactly the attitude many SLR users of the 60s, 70s had for the lowly Leica M6 ... and the manufacturers followed suit. Similarly, there is no reason why today's technology cannot be made more compact, and still accommodate those of us who enjoy the digital darkroom ... and still be priced under the Leica M8.
my CA$0.02 :)
Decades ago, I went to my first SLR film camera after leaving the lens cap on my Leica rangefinder one time too many. :/ That has never been a problem with view cameras and twin-lens cameras, nor is it now with DSLRs. :D
> point and shooters are generally not true photographers
But nearly all "true" photographers would like to have a high-quality pocket-sized camera to carry around when it isn't practical to haul the SLR. After all, a serious photographer would be more interested in being ready to take a picture at any time, right? It's a big mistake to believe that pro photographers and point-and-shoot users are mutually exclusive groups.
I hang on to my aging Canon S60 P&S because it has a raw mode, on top of manual aperture and shutter speed capability. Shooting that camera in raw is much better and more flexible in post than shooting in JPEG mode. I read somewhere that Canon felt they could remove raw from later models because they improved the quality of the JPEG output.
Claiming that point-and-shoots don't have raw because P&S users aren't interested in quality images does not explain why several models in the Canon A-series of P&S cameras still give you full manual control over aperture and shutter speed. How do they justify giving users all that if a raw mode isn't also justified, especially as sensors have improved?
I'm hoping that somebody will come out with another affordable raw-capable P&S before my S60 dies.
I too wish that Canon had continued with the S line, including RAW support which was dropped in the S80. I've got an S40 that is still used regularly. They were tough little buggers and made nice images.
The closest thing now is the Olympus SW series, but again, no RAW.
As the pressure to produce more features at a lower price point mounts, it seems that image stabilization and video have trumped RAW in the P&S arena. It's amazing how many people base the purchase of a still camera on it's ability to do video, which gives you an idea as to the marketing decisions that influence engineering.
Now if there was a digital version of the Leica CL...
In the mean time, keeping an eye open for a deal on an S70.
Sorry if i offended anyone with me comment earlier. i was not trying to demean anyone. my impression of the majority of point and shoot owners is they are moms shooting soccer,or people who just want something to whip out and grab a quick record shot. they do not want to be bothered with composition or lighting, but i guess my statement was a little too encompassing, and there are a lot of good photos coming from these cameras.
I wonder if ACR users would agree with Chuck Westfall's response, who is Canon's director of media and customer relations.
"Why Canon's PowerShot G7 lacks 'raw' support"
That is, I don't see "noise" as a good reason for eliminating raw. True, a significant amount of noise can make an image worthy of only 8bits, but many of us would appreciate using raw for correcting the color fringing, which for these cameras, is more worse than the lenses on our DSLRs.
As I investigate into P&S cameras that do offer RAW (e.g., Ricoh GX100), I seem to be running into another problem ... i.e., that for most, if not all, of these cameras the time for saving to raw is excessive. I see no reason for it, other than the camera manufacturers witholding technology and having made up their minds as to "those who want raw, do not want a P&S."
(more of) my CA$0.02 :)
Interesting. I hadn't seen that response from Canon on the G7. So the price we pay for the stupid megapixel race on small sensors is the lack of RAW. In any event I think it misses a lot of the point of RAW - it is control over the final output that is desirable, as much as the search for "better" image quality than that provided by the jpeg.
I hope my Canon G3 keeps working for a while yet.
Edit to add re Donald's "soccer mums" comment - if you want to shoot kids sport the last thing you need is a compact - they just don't focus or shoot quickly enough. Photographing action kids activities was one of the major reasons I upgraded to a DSLR. If I'm playing soccer mum, I leave the compact at home and take a 20D with a 70-200 L lens on it! (and no I wasn't offended by Donald's comment!)
Throwing my hat into the ring, I carry a Canon S70 everywhere (except today, when I really wanted it).
The argument that Canon is using about the quality completely misses the real reasons why users prefer raw files over JPEG files, which is after the fact adjustment flexibility (white balance, etc).
Just to let everyone know, Olympus has two P&S camereas in their lineup that save to RAW. Can't remember the model numbers, but it's two of their meg-zoom units.
Hopefully the other manufacturers realize there is value in maintaining this feature.
S70's are still going for $300+ on ebay. Just picked one up with a broken LCD...$150! I'm a repair tech, so it was a deal, as it came with all the original stuff. Even cameras with broken lenses are going for $100+.