Reason for less RAW support??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by markbau@iprimus.com.au, Oct 31, 2006.

  1. Guest

    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
     
    , Oct 31, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 30 Oct 2006 17:02:38 -0800, wrote:


    >Why are the manufacturers dropping their support for RAW from all but SLR's?


    I've been wondering the same thing. The one thing
    I really miss in my "newest" digicam is RAW. That
    makes it rather less useful than it might otherwise be.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Oct 31, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Raphael Bustin" <> wrote:
    > On 30 Oct 2006 17:02:38 -0800, wrote:
    >
    >>Why are the manufacturers dropping their support for RAW from all but
    >>SLR's?

    >
    > I've been wondering the same thing. The one thing
    > I really miss in my "newest" digicam is RAW. That
    > makes it rather less useful than it might otherwise be.


    My (jaundiced) theory is that the noise is so bad (due to the insanely small
    pixels) that the manufacturers don't want the users to see images without
    the in-camera noise reduction.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 31, 2006
    #3
  4. David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > "Raphael Bustin" <> wrote:
    >
    >>On 30 Oct 2006 17:02:38 -0800, wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Why are the manufacturers dropping their support for RAW from all but
    >>>SLR's?

    >>
    >>I've been wondering the same thing. The one thing
    >>I really miss in my "newest" digicam is RAW. That
    >>makes it rather less useful than it might otherwise be.

    >
    >
    > My (jaundiced) theory is that the noise is so bad (due to the insanely small
    > pixels) that the manufacturers don't want the users to see images without
    > the in-camera noise reduction.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >

    Yes, I agree. The smaller pixel cameras have very bad noise, so a
    jpeg does just fine.

    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.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 31, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    wrote:
    > Are there any compacts (non SLR's) that do RAW?


    Dpreview offers RAW as a selection criteria, I think there are still
    some. My Fuji S9500 has raw, but it is maybe a little bigger than a
    compact! And yes, the raw files look a bit scary until processed..
     
    , Oct 31, 2006
    #5
  6. Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>, 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".
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
     
    Alfred Molon, Oct 31, 2006
    #6
  7. wrote:
    > 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


    Panasonic FZ30 and FZ50.
     
    Dennis Pogson, Oct 31, 2006
    #7
  8. Guest

    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.

    Mark
     
    , Oct 31, 2006
    #8
  9. Ken Weitzel Guest

    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.
    >
    > Mark


    Hi...

    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
     
    Ken Weitzel, Oct 31, 2006
    #9
  10. John Bean Guest

    On 31 Oct 2006 03:33:49 -0800, 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.


    Did you look at the compact Panasonics at the same time?
    Clearly not...

    >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.


    .... otherwise you would have spotted the LX2 and its
    predecessor the LX1 that I have.

    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Oct 31, 2006
    #10
  11. On 31 Oct 2006 03:33:49 -0800, <> 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
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Oct 31, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    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
     
    , Oct 31, 2006
    #12
  13. Guest

    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
     
    , Oct 31, 2006
    #13
  14. 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/
     
    Richard Kettlewell, Oct 31, 2006
    #14
  15. Alfred Molon wrote:

    > In article <>, 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
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 31, 2006
    #15
  16. 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




    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    >
     
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 31, 2006
    #16
  17. Ken Weitzel Guest

    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
     
    Ken Weitzel, Oct 31, 2006
    #17
  18. On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:15:21 GMT, "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.



    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
     
    Raphael Bustin, Oct 31, 2006
    #18
  19. Guest

    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
     
    , Oct 31, 2006
    #19
  20. Guest

    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
     
    , Oct 31, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Editor  www.nutritionsoftware.org

    How raw is RAW format?

    Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org, Dec 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    590
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Dec 22, 2003
  2. Vlad Gunko

    Adobe PS RAW convertor vs Nikon RAW convertor

    Vlad Gunko, Jan 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    544
    Brian C. Baird
    Jan 25, 2005
  3. Alan Browne

    [Maxxum 7D] Dimage RAW Viewer v. Adobe Raw Plugin

    Alan Browne, Mar 9, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    453
    papaboop
    Mar 12, 2005
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,434
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. ray

    raw at less than max pixel count??

    ray, Jan 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    348
Loading...

Share This Page