Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Reason for less RAW support??

Reply
Thread Tools

Reason for less RAW support??

 
 
Daniel Silevitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
On 31 Oct 2006 03:33:49 -0800, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Dennis Pogson wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Are there any compacts (non SLR's) that do RAW?

>
>>
>> Panasonic FZ30 and FZ50.

>
> Just looked at these, I wouldn't call them compacts, far from it.
>
> This is getting desparate, I don't think there are any compacts that do
> RAW!!! What a gap, begging to be filled in the digital market.


Staying with Panasonic, their LX1 and LX2 are pretty compact, and do
RAW.

-dms
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
markbau@iprimus.com.au
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006

Ken Weitzel wrote:

> Not sure what definition of compact you're using, but
> have you looked at the Olympus sp-350?
>
> Is it small enough to meet your needs?
>
> Take care.
>
> Ken


Thanks for that Ken. It certainly meets my definition of a compact! I
had a look on Olympus's website and am a bit confused:

Recording Modes DCF Exif 2.21, JPEG, PIM3
Adjustment Resolutions RAW 3264 x 2448
SHQ 3264 x 2448
<<<SNIP>>>

It calls RAW an "adjustment resolution" What exactly do they mean by
this? RAW means no adjustments, just what the sensor records WITHOUT
adjustment, so I am very confused by the Olympus definition. I have
emailed them.

Mark

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
markbau@iprimus.com.au
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006

Daniel Silevitch wrote:

> > This is getting desparate, I don't think there are any compacts that do
> > RAW!!! What a gap, begging to be filled in the digital market.

>
> Staying with Panasonic, their LX1 and LX2 are pretty compact, and do
> RAW.


Many thanks for that Daniel. Might be a choice between one of them and
the Olympus 350.

Mark

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Kettlewell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
(E-Mail Removed) writes:
> Daniel Silevitch wrote:


>>> This is getting desparate, I don't think there are any compacts
>>> that do RAW!!! What a gap, begging to be filled in the digital
>>> market.

>>
>> Staying with Panasonic, their LX1 and LX2 are pretty compact, and
>> do RAW.

>
> Many thanks for that Daniel. Might be a choice between one of them
> and the Olympus 350.


I had a look at the LX2 and the 350 in a local Jessops recently. They
have a raw mode, but (as I was warned here might be the case...) they
were both very slow to record images in this format.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark) says...
>
>
>>The Canon S70 has raw (7 megapixel). I got one just for testing
>>the noise. The camera works great at iso 50 or 100 with
>>lots of light. But there is no use for higher than iso 100 as
>>the 12-bit a/d already has 1 data number = 1 electron, and
>>read noise is about 4 electrons. So iso 100 pretty much gets
>>all the information there is, and even jpeg gamma encoded pretty
>>much gets all the info too.

>
> Obviously you use such a camera always at lowest ISO, and at higher ISOs
> only in "emergency mode".


But if the A/D is already digitizing every electron, there is
no need to boost iso. You can always post process the image
and increase the brightness (plus the noise). Boosting ISO only
reduces dynamic range in that case. The only time
to boost iso is when you want to see the image on the
camera or use the image with no post processing.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joseph Meehan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
I would guess they are finding that most customers of non-SLR cameras
are not interested in RAW and it is causing more confusion than help for
their customers.

--
Joseph E. Meehan




<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> My fantastic Canon S 50 has finally given up the ghost after about 3
> years of much use and abuse. Looking at the specs for the current
> model, S 80 I notice that it doesn't do RAW format. A bit more digging
> and I find that if I want to stay with RAW I'll have to go to a SLR
> digital camera.
>
> 2 questions:
>
> Are there any compacts (non SLR's) that do RAW?
>
> Why are the manufacturers dropping their support for RAW from all but
> SLR's?
>
> Mark
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Weitzel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>> Not sure what definition of compact you're using, but
>> have you looked at the Olympus sp-350?
>>
>> Is it small enough to meet your needs?
>>
>> Take care.
>>
>> Ken

>
> Thanks for that Ken. It certainly meets my definition of a compact! I
> had a look on Olympus's website and am a bit confused:
>
> Recording Modes DCF Exif 2.21, JPEG, PIM3
> Adjustment Resolutions RAW 3264 x 2448
> SHQ 3264 x 2448
> <<<SNIP>>>
>
> It calls RAW an "adjustment resolution" What exactly do they mean by
> this? RAW means no adjustments, just what the sensor records WITHOUT
> adjustment, so I am very confused by the Olympus definition. I have
> emailed them.
>
> Mark


Hi Mark...

I have one and love it, though have no idea why the
ambiguous "adjustment resolution" term. The raw is in
..orf format, and can be processed with Oly's software
supplied, and bibble.

If you have bibble, I'll be happy to mail you an .orf
to look at and experiment with.

Take care.

Ken


 
Reply With Quote
 
Raphael Bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:15:21 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I would guess they are finding that most customers of non-SLR cameras
>are not interested in RAW and it is causing more confusion than help for
>their customers.



That's a fairly charitable (and dubious) view IMO -- given
the complexity of the existing menu trees. It's easy enough
to set JPG as the default -- in which case "clueless" newbies
could happily remain ignorant of RAW mode.

I'm afraid Roger and Dave L. are on the mark in their
assesment of the matter. If you buy that assesment,
loss of RAW mode isn't quite such a huge deal due to
the inherent noise of these sensors.

And speaking of Canon in particular, I've observed in
other cases where the UI of low-end products bespeaks
a rather low opinion of the typical user.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
markbau@iprimus.com.au
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006

Joseph Meehan wrote:
> I would guess they are finding that most customers of non-SLR cameras
> are not interested in RAW and it is causing more confusion than help for
> their customers.


Or they are forcing "serious' photographers" into their high
end/expensive SLR's.

I can't believe that I'm the only person who likes to shoot in RAW
format that likes to carry a compact. Happily, as other posters have
pointed out at least two manufacturers still have the good sense to
make a compact that does RAW.

On a similar subject, I'm amazed by the number of serious film
photographers that make the move to digital and can't see any benefit
to shooting RAW.

Mark

 
Reply With Quote
 
markbau@iprimus.com.au
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006

Ken Weitzel wrote:

> Hi Mark...
>
> I have one and love it, though have no idea why the
> ambiguous "adjustment resolution" term. The raw is in
> .orf format, and can be processed with Oly's software
> supplied, and bibble.
>
> If you have bibble, I'll be happy to mail you an .orf
> to look at and experiment with.
>
> Take care.
>
> Ken


Do you have photoshop? I just looked on the Adobe website and it says
that RAW 3.4 (PS CS2) supports the Olympus SP 350.

Thanks again for your help.

Mark

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
raw at less than max pixel count?? ray Digital Photography 8 01-28-2012 01:27 AM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! jiajia wu ASP .Net 0 10-01-2009 01:50 PM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! lllll Ruby 0 06-08-2009 02:10 PM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! 6668 Ruby 0 05-14-2009 12:33 AM
How raw is RAW format? Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org Digital Photography 4 12-22-2003 07:33 PM



Advertisments