Dpreview REALLY scraping the barrel bottom now!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Rich on 7 Jul 2010 20:19 On Jul 7, 7:59 pm, nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <4c350e28$0$4840$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > Stuffed Crust <pi...(a)spam.shaftnet.org> wrote: > > > I also thought that odd. I think that is because the manufacturers know > > > their target market is never going to use RAW, let alone know what RAW > > > is. So why make any effort to add a feature they know will never be > > > used. > > > Or perhaps this is due to the fact that most compact cameras now correct > > the images for lens flaws (eg pincushion/barrel distortion) when > > generating JPGs, but if you pull up their RAW output, you'll have to > > apply the corection manually.. and the corrections would likely change > > at each combination of zoom stepping and focal distance. > > > So unless the manufacturer provides an official RAW converter, that's a > > hell of a lot of work to get a non-distorted image... > > the manufacturers do provide official raw converters that can read the > metadata. > > the reason that raw is not in low end cameras is because the target > market doesn't care and the sensor isn't good enough for it to matter > that much. They don't include it because the dunces who buy and use those cameras would accidentally shift into RAW mode, then they wouldn't be able to view the images on their stupid phones or in Windows Picture Preview, or whatever the Hell they call it. Then they'd cry.
From: SMS on 7 Jul 2010 20:21 On 07/07/10 4:59 PM, nospam wrote: <snip> > the reason that raw is not in low end cameras is because the target > market doesn't care and the sensor isn't good enough for it to matter > that much. It's also because they don't want to be compelled to document it and then to field expensive support calls from the people trying to use it. Better to let something like CHDK provide unofficial RAW support for the few people that want to play with it (as well as support for a lot of other useful features that Canon doesn't want to be responsible for supporting). Those needing the control that RAW provides, and wanting the best quality results are using D-SLRs anyway.
From: nospam on 7 Jul 2010 20:25 In article <4c351a02$0$22128$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > > the reason that raw is not in low end cameras is because the target > > market doesn't care and the sensor isn't good enough for it to matter > > that much. > > It's also because they don't want to be compelled to document it and > then to field expensive support calls from the people trying to use it. that's basically the same thing. the target market isn't interested. those who know about the benefits of raw won't be buying low end cameras anyway. > Those needing the control that RAW provides, and wanting the best > quality results are using D-SLRs anyway. or high end compact p&s.
From: Savageduck on 7 Jul 2010 20:27 On 2010-07-07 17:21:33 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> said: > On 07/07/10 4:59 PM, nospam wrote: > > <snip> > >> the reason that raw is not in low end cameras is because the target >> market doesn't care and the sensor isn't good enough for it to matter >> that much. > > It's also because they don't want to be compelled to document it and > then to field expensive support calls from the people trying to use it. > > Better to let something like CHDK provide unofficial RAW support for > the few people that want to play with it (as well as support for a lot > of other useful features that Canon doesn't want to be responsible for > supporting). > > Those needing the control that RAW provides, and wanting the best > quality results are using D-SLRs anyway. That makes sense. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 7 Jul 2010 20:46
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:25:57 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <4c351a02$0$22128$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS ><scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >> > the reason that raw is not in low end cameras is because the target >> > market doesn't care and the sensor isn't good enough for it to matter >> > that much. >> >> It's also because they don't want to be compelled to document it and >> then to field expensive support calls from the people trying to use it. > >that's basically the same thing. the target market isn't interested. >those who know about the benefits of raw won't be buying low end >cameras anyway. Benefits of RAW: 1. Trying to correct your under or over exposures manually and tediously because you or your camera failed to capture your image properly in the first place. 2. Trying to correct your white-balance manually and tediously because you or your camera failed to capture your image properly in the first place. Yup, that's about it! |