Why don't Canon DSLRs have usable RAW modes?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by George Preddy, Apr 20, 2004.

  1. I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    (most prosumers P&S's are better).

    On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image, which obviously disallows the
    assessment of basic focus, which as everyone already knows is a major
    design flaw in Canons already.

    Add to that, their RAW software takes 30-45 seconds to render each
    parameter change to an image (compare to Sigma/Foveon's RAW software,
    which renders everything in real time).

    Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?
     
    George Preddy, Apr 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. George Preddy

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Geroge is lying again. He actually knows nothing about Canon dSLRS - or any
    dSLRs for that matter. George is a liar, and a troll.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    > until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    > (most prosumers P&S's are better).
    >
    > On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    > tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image, which obviously disallows the
    > assessment of basic focus, which as everyone already knows is a major
    > design flaw in Canons already.
    >
    > Add to that, their RAW software takes 30-45 seconds to render each
    > parameter change to an image (compare to Sigma/Foveon's RAW software,
    > which renders everything in real time).
    >
    > Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?
     
    Tony Spadaro, Apr 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. George Preddy wrote:
    > I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    > until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    > (most prosumers P&S's are better).
    >
    > On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    > tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image, which obviously disallows the
    > assessment of basic focus, which as everyone already knows is a major
    > design flaw in Canons already.
    >
    > Add to that, their RAW software takes 30-45 seconds to render each
    > parameter change to an image (compare to Sigma/Foveon's RAW software,
    > which renders everything in real time).
    >
    > Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?



    Hey, why don't you come up with a better camera then...
    Let me think... an SD10 perhaps? :p
     
    Yves Deweerdt, Apr 20, 2004
    #3
  4. George Preddy

    Savidge4 Guest

    >I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    >until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    >(most prosumers P&S's are better).


    Actually for the 10-D the number is 118,000 pixels and for your beloved SD9
    there is 130,000 pixels
    >
    >On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    >tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image, which obviously disallows the
    >assessment of basic focus, which as everyone already knows is a major
    >design flaw in Canons already.


    I would be led to believe that somewhere you are miss reading the information
    given on dpreview in regards to this information. yes you are looking at a
    JPEG, but are you aware of the 10x zoom playback function? I personally have a
    D-60 and it takes no where near 5.5 seconds to load a preview shot of a raw
    image and i can look at the image enlarged by scrolling through a 9 space grid.
    you are clueless as to what you are saying with regard to the capabilities of
    the Canon cameras.

    >
    >Add to that, their RAW software takes 30-45 seconds to render each
    >parameter change to an image (compare to Sigma/Foveon's RAW software,
    >which renders everything in real time).


    I find it rather refreshing that Canon has not delved to deeply into the
    software aspect of digital imaging. It is very clear that there was a
    partnership up front with Adobe for support of thier products to be included in
    the once plug-in, now included RAW function of Photoshop.

    >
    >Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?
    >


    i think you may have this twisted, it is clear by your choice of camera that
    you are not a "serious shooter".
     
    Savidge4, Apr 20, 2004
    #4
  5. "serious shooter"? That's YOU, George-the-obsessed, a
    serious mouth shooter. For a troll, you sure are
    PERSISTENT, I'll grant you that. If your Foveon floats your
    boat so well, why aren't you out there USING it, instead of
    wasting your time impugning other camera maker's products?
    Who do you think will be taken in by your lies and
    distortion? Every post you make just sinks your credibility
    that much more.

    sincerely, dave

    George Preddy wrote:
    > I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    > until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    > (most prosumers P&S's are better).
    >
    > On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    > tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image, which obviously disallows the
    > assessment of basic focus, which as everyone already knows is a major
    > design flaw in Canons already.
    >
    > Add to that, their RAW software takes 30-45 seconds to render each
    > parameter change to an image (compare to Sigma/Foveon's RAW software,
    > which renders everything in real time).
    >
    > Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?
     
    Bay Area Dave, Apr 20, 2004
    #5
  6. George Preddy

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    > until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    > (most prosumers P&S's are better).


    "Prosumer P&S." An oxymoron from a . . . well you fill in the blank.

    >
    > On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    > tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image,


    I doubt that dpreview.com said that and, at any rate, it simply isn't true.
    On my 10D it's no more than a second or so.

    > which obviously disallows the
    > assessment of basic focus, which as everyone already knows is a major
    > design flaw in Canons already.


    Only if "everyone" means "George Preddy." No focus problems with my 10D.

    >
    > Add to that, their RAW software takes 30-45 seconds to render each
    > parameter change to an image (compare to Sigma/Foveon's RAW software,
    > which renders everything in real time).


    What computer are you using, an original IBM XT? On my 1.4 GHz Athlon, RAW
    comes up in about 10 seconds, 5 second on my 2.8 GHz P4.

    >
    > Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?


    Obviously, it does. Why do you make up lies in your jihad against Canon?
    You still haven't answered that.
     
    PTRAVEL, Apr 20, 2004
    #6
  7. George Preddy

    ~ Darrell ~ Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    > until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    > (most prosumers P&S's are better).
    >

    And your point is? this is just a preview screen...

    Why doesn't Sigma make a real camera...
     
    ~ Darrell ~, Apr 20, 2004
    #7
  8. George Preddy

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    George Preddy <> wrote:
    >
    >On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    >tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image,


    I just timed the delay from shutter closing oto thumbnail display on the
    10D. It was 2.2 seconds.

    >which obviously disallows the assessment of basic focus


    The embedded JPEG size is configurable and can be set at the full resolution
    of 6 megapixels.
     
    Chris Brown, Apr 20, 2004
    #8

  9. > Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?


    Why don't you go away?
     
    Charles Schuler, Apr 20, 2004
    #9
  10. George Preddy

    Skip M Guest

    He's already admitted that he doesn't own any of the cameras he extols.
    When someone challenged him on his ownership, he said, "Who needs to own a
    camera to tell..."Or is that exTrolls? His Sigma SD9 and 10 images are
    stolen from other photographers.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    "Savidge4" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    > >until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    > >(most prosumers P&S's are better).

    >
    > Actually for the 10-D the number is 118,000 pixels and for your beloved

    SD9
    > there is 130,000 pixels
    > >
    > >On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    > >tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image, which obviously disallows the
    > >assessment of basic focus, which as everyone already knows is a major
    > >design flaw in Canons already.

    >
    > I would be led to believe that somewhere you are miss reading the

    information
    > given on dpreview in regards to this information. yes you are looking at

    a
    > JPEG, but are you aware of the 10x zoom playback function? I personally

    have a
    > D-60 and it takes no where near 5.5 seconds to load a preview shot of a

    raw
    > image and i can look at the image enlarged by scrolling through a 9 space

    grid.
    > you are clueless as to what you are saying with regard to the

    capabilities of
    > the Canon cameras.
    >
    > >
    > >Add to that, their RAW software takes 30-45 seconds to render each
    > >parameter change to an image (compare to Sigma/Foveon's RAW software,
    > >which renders everything in real time).

    >
    > I find it rather refreshing that Canon has not delved to deeply into the
    > software aspect of digital imaging. It is very clear that there was a
    > partnership up front with Adobe for support of thier products to be

    included in
    > the once plug-in, now included RAW function of Photoshop.
    >
    > >
    > >Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?
    > >

    >
    > i think you may have this twisted, it is clear by your choice of camera

    that
    > you are not a "serious shooter".
    >
    >
     
    Skip M, Apr 20, 2004
    #10
  11. George Preddy

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    George does not own a camera --- any camera. He thinks it is his job to get
    people to waste money on junk.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Bay Area Dave" <> wrote in message
    news:CTdhc.53308$...
    > "serious shooter"? That's YOU, George-the-obsessed, a
    > serious mouth shooter. For a troll, you sure are
    > PERSISTENT, I'll grant you that. If your Foveon floats your
    > boat so well, why aren't you out there USING it, instead of
    > wasting your time impugning other camera maker's products?
    > Who do you think will be taken in by your lies and
    > distortion? Every post you make just sinks your credibility
    > that much more.
    >
    > sincerely, dave
    >
    > George Preddy wrote:
    > > I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    > > until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    > > (most prosumers P&S's are better).
    > >
    > > On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    > > tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image, which obviously disallows the
    > > assessment of basic focus, which as everyone already knows is a major
    > > design flaw in Canons already.
    > >
    > > Add to that, their RAW software takes 30-45 seconds to render each
    > > parameter change to an image (compare to Sigma/Foveon's RAW software,
    > > which renders everything in real time).
    > >
    > > Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?

    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Apr 20, 2004
    #11
  12. > On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    > tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image, which obviously disallows the
    > assessment of basic focus, which as everyone already knows is a major
    > design flaw in Canons already.


    Back on the crack pipe, eh George? Mine doesn't take that long to
    display.

    > Add to that, their RAW software takes 30-45 seconds to render each
    > parameter change to an image (compare to Sigma/Foveon's RAW software,
    > which renders everything in real time).


    Yeah, the Canon software is pretty lame-o. That's why I use PhotoShop
    CS.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Apr 20, 2004
    #12
  13. George Preddy

    Guest

    In message <c63q7n$7m502$-berlin.de>,
    "PTRAVEL" <> wrote:

    >"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    >> until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    >> (most prosumers P&S's are better).

    >
    >"Prosumer P&S." An oxymoron from a . . . well you fill in the blank.
    >
    >>
    >> On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    >> tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image,

    >
    >I doubt that dpreview.com said that and, at any rate, it simply isn't true.
    >On my 10D it's no more than a second or so.


    The only time the 10D is particularly slow at review is when you shoot
    two images in rapid succession in RAW mode; it puts your request on hold
    until the writing is done. For single shots, review doesn't take very
    long, nor does it with JPEGs.

    It's not as bad as SteveGeorge suggests all the time, but review mode on
    the 10D does leave a lot to be desired, IMO. It should give better
    priority to the user's immediate wishes than it does.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Apr 21, 2004
    #13
  14. "~ Darrell ~" <> wrote in message
    news:Euehc.162094$...
    >
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    > > until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    > > (most prosumers P&S's are better).
    > >

    > And your point is? this is just a preview screen...


    And "Preddy" is lying as usual. The 10D has a 118,000 pixel TFT LCD.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Apr 21, 2004
    #14
  15. George Preddy

    PTRAVEL Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <c63q7n$7m502$-berlin.de>,
    > "PTRAVEL" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    > >> until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    > >> (most prosumers P&S's are better).

    > >
    > >"Prosumer P&S." An oxymoron from a . . . well you fill in the blank.
    > >
    > >>
    > >> On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    > >> tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image,

    > >
    > >I doubt that dpreview.com said that and, at any rate, it simply isn't

    true.
    > >On my 10D it's no more than a second or so.

    >
    > The only time the 10D is particularly slow at review is when you shoot
    > two images in rapid succession in RAW mode; it puts your request on hold
    > until the writing is done. For single shots, review doesn't take very
    > long, nor does it with JPEGs.
    >
    > It's not as bad as SteveGeorge suggests all the time, but review mode on
    > the 10D does leave a lot to be desired, IMO. It should give better
    > priority to the user's immediate wishes than it does.


    I shoot only raw, and I have yet to have an occassion when I needed
    immediate review of something after shooting a couple of shots in
    succession. I suppose, if I tried, I could conceive of some circumstance
    where it would be desireable, but I'd really have to strain.

    I came to digital photography after shooting film for 40+ years. Of course,
    in film photography there is no such thing as "review." You compose your
    shot and find out some time later how it came out. Maybe it's for that
    reason that I just don't care much at all about the speed of review.

    That Preddy does merely confirms that (1) he's not an experienced
    photographer since, if he was, he'd have the same film background that I do,
    and (2) as usual, he's just looking for fodder for his "smear Canon"
    campaign.. And, as usual, he lied in the process.


    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    PTRAVEL, Apr 21, 2004
    #15
  16. George Preddy

    Mark B. Guest

    "Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > > Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?

    >
    > Why don't you go away?
    >
    >


    Because people keep responding to him. Until folks realize that, we're
    stuck with him.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Apr 21, 2004
    #16
  17. George Preddy

    jean Guest

    No, you are wrong, he is an IDIOT!

    Jean

    "Tony Spadaro" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:9Lchc.42276$...
    > Geroge is lying again. He actually knows nothing about Canon dSLRS - or

    any
    > dSLRs for that matter. George is a liar, and a troll.
    >
    > --
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    > > until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    > > (most prosumers P&S's are better).
    > >
    > > On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    > > tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image, which obviously disallows the
    > > assessment of basic focus, which as everyone already knows is a major
    > > design flaw in Canons already.
    > >
    > > Add to that, their RAW software takes 30-45 seconds to render each
    > > parameter change to an image (compare to Sigma/Foveon's RAW software,
    > > which renders everything in real time).
    > >
    > > Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?

    >
    >
     
    jean, Apr 21, 2004
    #17
  18. George Preddy

    Mark M Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    > until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    > (most prosumers P&S's are better).
    >
    > On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    > tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image, which obviously disallows the
    > assessment of basic focus, which as everyone already knows is a major
    > design flaw in Canons already.
    >
    > Add to that, their RAW software takes 30-45 seconds to render each
    > parameter change to an image (compare to Sigma/Foveon's RAW software,
    > which renders everything in real time).
    >
    > Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?


    More idiocy from the village idiot.
     
    Mark M, Apr 21, 2004
    #18
  19. George Preddy

    Mark M Guest

    WRe: Why don't Canon DSLRs have usable RAW modes?

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <c63q7n$7m502$-berlin.de>,
    > "PTRAVEL" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> I didn't realize how truly bad the Canon DSLRs were in review mode
    > >> until Bart pointed out that they only have a 100,000 pixel TFT LCD
    > >> (most prosumers P&S's are better).

    > >
    > >"Prosumer P&S." An oxymoron from a . . . well you fill in the blank.
    > >
    > >>
    > >> On top of that they take 5.5 secs (dpreview.com) to display only a
    > >> tiny JPEG thumbnail of a RAW image,

    > >
    > >I doubt that dpreview.com said that and, at any rate, it simply isn't

    true.
    > >On my 10D it's no more than a second or so.

    >
    > The only time the 10D is particularly slow at review is when you shoot
    > two images in rapid succession in RAW mode; it puts your request on hold
    > until the writing is done. For single shots, review doesn't take very
    > long, nor does it with JPEGs.
    >
    > It's not as bad as SteveGeorge suggests all the time, but review mode on
    > the 10D does leave a lot to be desired, IMO. It should give better
    > priority to the user's immediate wishes than it does.


    The user's wishes were indicated to the camera when teh user tripped the
    shutter.
    It is setting the recording of that intended image as the top priority--as
    it most certainly should be set.
     
    Mark M, Apr 21, 2004
    #19
  20. (Savidge4) wrote in message news:<>...

    <areas of agreement snipped>

    > I find it rather refreshing that Canon has not delved to deeply into the
    > software aspect of digital imaging. It is very clear that there was a
    > partnership up front with Adobe for support of thier products


    Add $800. BTW, Photoshop is a poor RAW processor.

    > >Why doesn't Canon make a DSLR for serious shooters?

    >
    > i think you may have this twisted, it is clear by your choice of camera that
    > you are not a "serious shooter".


    Canons ship without any usable RAW software, don't have a full RAW
    image review mode avaialble (so shoot film instead, obviously), and it
    takes a few seconds to see even that instead of the <0.1 seconds of
    the pro Sigma SDs. What a joke.

    If it makes you feel any better, the Fuji S2 "Pro" is also a prosumer
    camera in that it doesn't have a full RAW review mode in camera, only
    a tiny JPEG thumbnail representation. JACAC. Just as crippled as
    Canon.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 21, 2004
    #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. wolfb

    Why/When will old digitals no longer be usable???

    wolfb, Sep 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    529
    Yehuda Paradise
    Sep 10, 2003
  2. Larry

    Canon CB-2LT charger usable in Europe?

    Larry, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    498
    Larry
    Sep 14, 2003
  3. tom mears

    Alpha-release of Raw converter (Canon CRW) for dSLRs

    tom mears, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    2,365
  4. O R

    Why Don't High-End DSLRs Have Three Chips?

    O R, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    629
    Dave Martindale
    Nov 13, 2003
  5. fashion t shirts seller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,635
    fashion t shirts seller
    Jun 13, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page