This is why no RAW on the G7

[Jonathan Wienke]

And on what do you base your statement that I have no programming experience?   Must one need to be a programmer to participate in this thread?  Or be a photographer?  And I don't really care what you think of my qualifications.

I do not dismiss, casually or otherwise, the experience of progammers.  Nor do I simply accept anything and everything they say, even that they are experienced programmers.

Your programming ignorance is pretty obvious. You made an statement, with no evidence whatsoever to support it, that you thought adding RAW support would significantly add to the cost of the G7, sufficiently so to make it economically unviable as a product. When that was challenged by people with programming experience who have done similar tasks, you dismissed our statements as pure speculation and hand-waving, completely ignoring the fact that your original statement has even less factual basis to support it than ours. At least we have offered some professional experience as a basis to allow the readers of this thread to judge our credibility; you have not.

"Is anything you've contributed to this thread based on actual personal experience[?]"  Yes.  "... something more concrete than blind faith in Canon's marketing department?"  Yes.  Actually I do not have blind faith in Canon or you.  "Or are you just being contrarian for contrarianness' sake?"  No, I simply don't blindly buy into your ideas.

I was merely asking a question.  Is that too threatening for you?

No I'm merely pointing out that you're applying a double standard here. You refuse to accept anyone else's statments as having any validity unless they can provide a level of proof that would hold up in court, yet you expect everyone else to accept your statements as valid even though you have consistently refused to provide any qualifications to support your credibility, like whether you are privy to what's really going on inside Canon, what kind of programming experience you might have, whether or not you have ever owned a digital camera, whether or not you've ever shot RAW in your life, and if so, what level of expertise you have processing said RAW images. Either offer the kind of concrete proof to support your claims that you are demanding of everyone else (you've just claimed to have something of the sort, and we'd all love to hear it), provide some kind of justification why your opinions are more valid than everyone else's (like personal qualifications/experience), or cease and desist, howard smith.

[aaykay]

I was asking a question, hoping to gather more information.  Hence, the ? after the question.

Howie, I think I mentioned this before but let me repeat it :

a) Typically, in a camera that comes with RAW, you can shoot both RAW and JPEG simultaneously.  Again, RAW is simply a data file, in a different format from JPEG.  You can delete it, if you don't want to keep it.

b ) Let us assume that you decided to shoot the picture, purely as RAW, as opposed to the RAW+JPEG setting.  If you want to recreate a JPEG, **exactly** like the camera does internally (and want to do ZERO post processing), all you have to do is to open the RAW file in the software that came with the camera and click "save as" JPEG.  You will get your JPEG in 2 seconds flat.  So even by shooting "RAW" only, you are not losing anything !  The upside is that RAW **always** contains more image data than any JPEG, since the JPEG is developed from the sensor's output (which is a synonym for RAW).....the logical thought being that the output simply cannot have more "real" data than the source.

To summarize the above, you are losing nothing by having the RAW **option**, since the JPEG option is not being taken away from you.  Among the hundreds of digital cameras in the market, I know of only one camera that does not provide a JPEG option and is RAW-only (if I am not mistaken) and that is the Sigma dSLR that uses a FOVEON sensor.  Every single other camera in the market, provides a JPEG option, even if RAW is available in the camera.

[howiesmith]

Your programming ignorance is pretty obvious. You made an statement, with no evidence whatsoever to support it, that you thought adding RAW support would significantly add to the cost of the G7, sufficiently so to make it economically unviable as a product. When that was challenged by people with programming experience who have done similar tasks, you dismissed our statements as pure speculation and hand-waving, completely ignoring the fact that your original statement has even less factual basis to support it than ours. At least we have offered some professional experience as a basis to allow the readers of this thread to judge our credibility; you have not.
No I'm merely pointing out that you're applying a double standard here. You refuse to accept anyone else's statments as having any validity unless they can provide a level of proof that would hold up in court, yet you expect everyone else to accept your statements as valid even though you have consistently refused to provide any qualifications to support your credibility, like whether you are privy to what's really going on inside Canon, what kind of programming experience you might have, whether or not you have ever owned a digital camera, whether or not you've ever shot RAW in your life, and if so, what level of expertise you have processing said RAW images. Either offer the kind of concrete proof to support your claims that you are demanding of everyone else (you've just claimed to have something of the sort, and we'd all love to hear it), provide some kind of justification why your opinions are more valid than everyone else's (like personal qualifications/experience), or cease and desist, howard smith.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[howiesmith]

Your programming ignorance is pretty obvious. You made an statement, with no evidence whatsoever to support it, that you thought adding RAW support would significantly add to the cost of the G7, sufficiently so to make it economically unviable as a product. When that was challenged by people with programming experience who have done similar tasks, you dismissed our statements as pure speculation and hand-waving, completely ignoring the fact that your original statement has even less factual basis to support it than ours. At least we have offered some professional experience as a basis to allow the readers of this thread to judge our credibility; you have not.
No I'm merely pointing out that you're applying a double standard here. You refuse to accept anyone else's statments as having any validity unless they can provide a level of proof that would hold up in court, yet you expect everyone else to accept your statements as valid even though you have consistently refused to provide any qualifications to support your credibility, like whether you are privy to what's really going on inside Canon, what kind of programming experience you might have, whether or not you have ever owned a digital camera, whether or not you've ever shot RAW in your life, and if so, what level of expertise you have processing said RAW images. Either offer the kind of concrete proof to support your claims that you are demanding of everyone else (you've just claimed to have something of the sort, and we'd all love to hear it), provide some kind of justification why your opinions are more valid than everyone else's (like personal qualifications/experience), or cease and desist, howard smith.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is your opinion then that I have no programming experience.  You have no data.

I don't think I ever said adding RAW "would" be prohiyitively expensive, I think I said it "could" be.  There is a difference.  I only challenged that the progammers had no experience to base their conclusion that adding RAW to the G& would add a few cwnts per camera.  You can't even say how many G7s Canon will make.  And what does that have to do with programming?  I recall there were a lot of "if,"  "assuming" and "probably" quailifiers that I was questioning.  Canon provided their expalnation and you simply said it was foolish.  Why not give them some credit?

I don't think I ever said I required court quality evidence.  Just more than "I think something may be true, so this may be a probable result."

I would be happy to "cease and desist."  I was not aware of any minimum qualifications required to post here.

"you are privy to what's really going on inside Canon"  No.  Are you?  Perhaps omitting RAW was a Canon business decision, not a technical one.  Not everything that is technically possible or evn good, makes business sense.

"what kind of programming experience you might have"  Not any business of yours and not really relavent to anything I have posted.  I don't think being a programmer alone makes one capablr of making Canon business decsions.

"whether or not you have ever owned a digital camera"  I do.  So what?  Does that matter.

" whether or not you've ever shot RAW in your life"  I have.  So what?  Does that matter?

"and if so, what level of expertise you have processing said RAW images"  Fairly minimal, but I can do it.  It isn't rocket surgery.

Why don't we just agree that we don't agree, likely never will, and probably don't like or respect one another's position.

[jani]

It is your opinion then that I have no programming experience.  You have no data.

Data point: you didn't know what an NDA was.

I find it very unlikely that professional programmers don't know of the concept, unless they've led a very isolated life (I know some Norwegian programmers who have).

I'll concede that you have some programming experience, because you've made the claim that you had in an earlier post.

Whatever that "programming experience" is worth in Jonathan, you or me in the context of such a discussion is another matter entirely.

I am, however, generally more willing to trust the opinions of people who have worked with similar development work than those who haven't, unless what they suggest goes against what I have learned through my education, hobbies and career (and if you want to know more about that, feel free to follow my homepage link).

What Jonathan and Robert wrote about costs (given the named provisos) makes sense from a development point of view, and I think it's safe to say that the decision to exclude raw support was mostly political and marketing.

Also keep in mind that Canon is a big company. All companies uck fup, big companies too, and probably more often than others. The theory of companies and persons always acting in elightened self-interest is long since refuted; it was basically picked apart over 2000 years ago by Greek philosophers.

I don't think I ever said I required court quality evidence.  Just more than "I think something may be true, so this may be a probable result."

You wrote:

If the programmers here are so sure, let them offer some solid, varifiable evidence.

"what kind of programming experience you might have"  Not any business of yours and not really relavent to anything I have posted.  I don't think being a programmer alone makes one capablr of making Canon business decsions.

Then what business is it of yours what qualifications those you're discussing with have? This is the double standard that Jonathan talks about.

If you give flak about others' qualifications, you really ought to put up with some questions regarding your own.

Why don't we just agree that we don't agree, likely never will, and probably don't like or respect one another's position.

I think the problem is a clash of discussion styles, not personal dislike. None of us seem to have met you personally.

I respect your position, but not your presentation of that position, nor your display of double standards.

[aaykay]

Perhaps omitting RAW was a Canon business decision, not a technical one. 

This statement in my opinion, is close to the mark !

[howiesmith]

Data point: you didn't know what an NDA was.

I find it very unlikely that professional programmers don't know of the concept, unless they've led a very isolated life (I know some Norwegian programmers who have).

I'll concede that you have some programming experience, because you've made the claim that you had in an earlier post.

Whatever that "programming experience" is worth in Jonathan, you or me in the context of such a discussion is another matter entirely.

I am, however, generally more willing to trust the opinions of people who have worked with similar development work than those who haven't, unless what they suggest goes against what I have learned through my education, hobbies and career (and if you want to know more about that, feel free to follow my homepage link).

What Jonathan and Robert wrote about costs (given the named provisos) makes sense from a development point of view, and I think it's safe to say that the decision to exclude raw support was mostly political and marketing.

Also keep in mind that Canon is a big company. All companies uck fup, big companies too, and probably more often than others. The theory of companies and persons always acting in elightened self-interest is long since refuted; it was basically picked apart over 2000 years ago by Greek philosophers.
You wrote:
Then what business is it of yours what qualifications those you're discussing with have? This is the double standard that Jonathan talks about.

If you give flak about others' qualifications, you really ought to put up with some questions regarding your own.
I think the problem is a clash of discussion styles, not personal dislike. None of us seem to have met you personally.

I respect your position, but not your presentation of that position, nor your display of double standards.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To me, in my experience, and NDA was a New Drug Application.  Did you kbow that?  I didn't think that was what you meant because it seemd as irrelevant as a non-disclosure agreement.  Had you said "non-disclosure agreement" instaed of NDA, I would have known exactly what you were talking about, even though I have never signed one.  And I don't know a single Norwegian programmer.  Come to think of it, I don't know any Norwegians.  But that is probably noy important either.

I claimed to have, and do have, some programming experience.  I just don't think it matters to this thread what my experience, your experience or anybody elses programming experience is.  Even if you were a Canon programmer.  Frequently, a technical person can provide any number of reasons to do something - technically- that makes absolutely no business sense.  (Been there.) Canon is a business, not a technical house selling technology for technology sake.  (Been there too.)  They are trying to use technology to run a business and make a yen for the company and shareholders.

I have no trouble with opinions.  We all use them.  What I have trouble with is folks packaging their opinions as facts.  "Canon is arrogant and think they know more than I do."  That is not an opinion, but a statement of "fact."  The problem is see is the speaker hasn't any basis but what they think (opinion).  

I recognize Canon is a big company.  I also recognize that companies of all sizes make mistakes.  Big companies maybe less than smaller ones, otherwise they would not have gotten big.  But companies are just collections of people, so some body(s) makes mistakes when a company makes a mistake.  Maybe one of those people is a programmer, has progamming experience or maybe a few programmers working for them.  (In the US, major league baseball players can make millions of dollars a year and only be right (get a hit) less than a third of their tries.)

I would add to the reason to exclude RAW may have been yen per share, and not necessarily "mostly political and marketing."  And I sure can't accept, "I want it.  I expect it." as the only reason for Canon to do anything.  (I want it.  CAnon thinks it is bad for Canon (or me).  I lose.)

I wasn't trying to give anyone flak about their qualifications.  I just don't believe merely having 7 years of programming experience is a qualification for saying Canon is arrogant and screwing photographers.  If it matters, I have technical degrees, and technical and business experience.  You say, "So what?  You still don't know what you're talking about."  But I do know enough to see there is no evidence of any quality on the table to support Canon doesn't maybe know what they are doing.  (Forgot to add that I am a PE, hold an SRO, and I am licensed by Arizona to onspect houses.  I also graduated from a high;y respected photography school, specializing in industrual photography.  But you still don't care becasue I have never been a camera programmer or in the US Army.  I did get an offer to fly helicopters for the Army, but passed,)

I don't understand the double standard issue you mention.  I haven't held myself as saying my opnion is fact and others opinions don't matter.  I just don't think it matters what your (or my qualifications) are when making unsupportable statements.  

Are you a Canon insider?  They are likely the only ones who really know and I don't think they are talking beyond the G7 with RAW wasn't that much better than JPG.  And from what I've read, nothing other than saying you and Jonathan are right would matter anyway.

All I have tried to say is there is no basis for saying Canon arrogantly and stupidly left RAW off the G7.

++++++++++++

Below is the type of reasoned suppotyrd responxe to Canon'a statement I akve been talking about:

Or his mind is being controlled by aliens...

It smells like a bunch of BS to me; there's no way that the in-camera computer can do a better job auto-processing RAWs than a desktop under the control of a knowledgeable, experienced human. They must think we're a bunch of retards.

[John Sheehy]

If you are working in a gamma 2.2 space, the conversion is nonlinear. and more complicated. Lightroom is the only program I know of that has the ability to WB from a gamma 2.2 JPEG, but I have not worked with Canon software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, WB is very easy in any gamma, as long as the entire DR of the format uses the *same* gamma.  The problem with JPEGs is the compression artifacts, and the fact that the gamma is different in different parts of the tonal range (S-curves and such).  When the gamma is consistent, multiplying any two values by the same amount will result in the same number of stops difference.  Any r:g:b ratio results in the same hue and saturation level at all luminances.

[Jonathan Wienke]

To me, in my experience, and NDA was a New Drug Application.

Then you've lived an extremely sheltered life as a programmer; I've never done programming work without a non-disclosure agreement, nor has any other programmer I've ever met who did so for a living.

All I have tried to say is there is no basis for saying Canon arrogantly and stupidly left RAW off the G7.

Well, let's review:

Canon's marketing materials for the G7 say:

"The PowerShot G7 delivers the image quality and optical performance demanded by advanced photographers."

"Canon's acclaimed G-Series has a new top-of-the-line model, and serious photography enthusiasts have a lot to be excited about."

Canon obviously intends the G7 for the advanced, serious photographer, not the ignorant unwashed masses of snapshooters as you have strongly implied repeatedly. But they deliberately omit the feature most desirable to advanced, serious photographers: RAW support, which gives digital photographers the equivalent of an undeveloped film negative to process however they choose with whatever combination of tools and settings they feel will achieve their creative vision. After much customer complaining and negative comments by reviewers about the removal of RAW support, Canon makes the claim, without any evidence whatsoever to support it, that RAW support is no longer necessary because the in-camera processing is so good. This claim is patently preposterous; it is the digital-world equivalent of saying an automated drugstore minilab is capable of processing and printing film just as well as an experienced lab technician. No one making such a claim in the days of film was taken seriously, and there is no reason to take Canon seriously now, for many reasons already hashed over in great detail in this thread. If Canon truly believes what it is saying about the G7's lack of RAW support, their people are truly stupid, or at least fundamentally ignorant of the basics of digital image processing.

On the other hand, if Canon deliberately omitted RAW support to "protect" their lineup of DSLRs from being poached by lower-cost models and is trying to spin-doctor the situation to obfuscate their true intentions and motivation, they are still stupid, and likely arrogant as well. As has been pointed out earlier, a RAW from a compact, small-sensored camera is noisier than a RAW from a DSLR, so there is still plenty of justification for the price difference between compact digicams and DSLRs, based on image quality as well as the flexibility of interchangeable lenses, optical viewfinder vs LCD/EVF, shooting rate, and other characteristics.

Canon has alienated many of the serious/advanced photographers the G7 is being marketed to, who prefer to maintain creative control of their images intead of letting the camera process them automatically by this decision. Canon is saying in effect two things: first, that they can auto-process images in-camera better than a human with years of experience, and second, that photographers who want a compact lightweight camera that actually gives the photographer creative control over his/her images must either buy a DSLR or go without. Or else choose a product from another vendor. That is arrogant, stupid or both.

Canon cannot possibly be enhancing their market position or enhancing their bottom line by alienating and insulting the intended market segment for the G7 in this manner; customer reaction the the G7's lack of RAW support is affecting Canon enough that they had Chuck Westfall attempt to defend the indefensible. That Canon felt the need to address the issue at all is a very strong indication that their bottom line is taking a hit. There's plenty of examples of issues with Canon photo gear that, while generating a lot of internet discussion, never got any official response at all, or merely a one-line mention in the feature list of the next firmware update. Back focus, anyone?

[howiesmith]

Rant on Johnny, but do not ever say I implied that anyone as "... the ignorant unwashed masses of snapshooters."

I think it is time for you to clean up your act.

[BernardLanguillier]

Gentlement, wouldn't it be time for us to all agree that we have had a fun time arguing on this, but that all opinions having been written 15 times already, it is time to decide whether or not to buy a G7 with its current limitations, and then move on to something else?  

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jonathan Wienke]

Rant on Johnny, but do not ever say I implied that anyone as "... the ignorant unwashed masses of snapshooters."

Nice try, but no cigar. You didn't use that exact term, but you did state that advanced users were not the intended market for the camera several times:

I was watching football last night.  At the kick off, there were of photo flashes seen.  Do you suppose all those folks that thought they had a flash capable of providing any value what so ever at that distance went home, fired up their comuters and processed a RAW file?  Or is RAW so good at fixing exposure, an on camera flash works OK at 100 yards?

Canon's intended market is an important factor in dtermining features.

-

The G7 is not directed at the same market as the DSLR. The problem seems to be users of DSLR thinking they are (or at least should be) the market audience.

For every photographer that thinks he needs RAW, I know 10 that don't even know what RAW is and wouldn't use it if it were available.

-

In my opinion, some folks on this sight have lost sight that the G7 is a point and shoot camera, not a professional tool. For every person who screams the G7 should (or must) have RAW, I cam point to 10 camera buyers who say "What's RAW? White balance?"

All the consumer (who is the alledged audience for this camera) seem to want is a really nice camera that takes "clear" pictures, is easy to use and makes a decent print or e-mail attachment of the family dog (or kid).

-

The G7 is a consumer camera...It is my observation that the usual Canon consumer for whom this camera seems to be intended will truly "point and shoot." Believe it nor not (and you don't have to), the entire world of picture takers do not process, nor do they want to process, every image for all its worth. Point, shoot, and paste the jpeg of the kids in the email to grandma.

Point and shoot. Plug and play. Sound easy and that is the idea.

The market segment you're describing (people too ignorant to realize that an on-camera flash is useless on subjects 100 yards away, completely oblivious to concepts like white balance and color accuracy, and unaware of RAW or unwilling to bother with it if they are aware of it, and only wanting semi-decent snapshots of pets/kids) can be accurately, if not politically correctly, summed up as "the ignorant unwashed masses of snapshooters." I used a phrase in lieu of multiple paragraphs for brevity's sake. However described, it is still not the same as the market segment described in Canon's marketing materials.

[Ray]

I doubt it; minimum-contrast JPEGs in my Canon DSLRs still have about a half-stop less highlight latitude than RAW. And even at contrast setting 0, the camera JPEGs are pretty flat and washed-out looking; -5 would be even more so. I'll do a test when I get around to it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan,
Cameras vary. As I mentioned, my 5D has about 0.8 stops less highlight latitude than RAW when contrast is at a minimum, but 1.33 to 1.66 stops less latitude when contrast is at a maximum. My Sony 7.2mp  DSC  T30 (ultra compact but no RAW) has only 3 contrast settings, minus, normal and plus. The differences between them, in respect of DR, are subtle. The exposure compensation settings of -2EC to +2EC are more useful for contrasty scenes.

I would imagine that a P&S camera that has contrast settings from minus 5 to plus 5 would have a greater potential for DR improvement at the lowest setting. You should try it. I'd be surprised if the difference between DR in RAW mode, and jpeg at minimum contrast, is greater than 1/3 of a stop.

Washed out and flat images should be no problem for someone prepared to spend time processing images in PS. As I mentioned before, conversions of RAW overexposed images (full exposure to the right) with settings designed to extract maximum highlight detail using ACR, can look rather dull and flat. Reducing contrast in ACR to -50 seems to create a greater 'washed out' look without providing any additional DR than a zero contrast setting.

This is not the case with 5D jpeg in-camera constrast settings and is possibly not the case with Olympus SP-350 contrast settings.

I also have no problem adjusting the WB of the jpeg image you posted. But of course, you made it easy by including a Gretag Macbeth chart with a few grey patches   .

[Ray]

Gentlement, wouldn't it be time for us to all agree that we have had a fun time arguing on this, but that all opinions having been written 15 times already, it is time to decide whether or not to buy a G7 with its current limitations, and then move on to something else?   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90630\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, Bernard. It's not time. I want to see comparisons amongst a G7 image at minimum constrast and saturation, a G6 RAW and an Olypus SP-350 RAW.

I'm also intrigued by the fact that the G7 can shoot video at 1024x768 resolution, but only at 15 frames/sec. I want to know if there's any affordable software that can quadruple that frame rate on playback, in perhaps a similar manner to the 100HZ TV systems we have in Australia, which double up on the 50 interlaced frames per sec rate.

[Ken Tanaka]

Well, while this "critical" debate has raged I've been having fun with my G7.  Let me know the outcome so I'll know whether to hate or love it.

[Ray]

Well, while this "critical" debate has raged I've been having fun with my G7.  Let me know the outcome so I'll know whether to hate or love it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90658\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I also have fun with my Sony DSC T30, in 640x480 video mode, sometimes shooting cabaret shows performed by Thai transvestites. The 3" wide LCD screen is very impressive on playback, but I'm afraid low light capability is very lacking.

By some strange quirk, the menu allows EC adjustment of +/- 2EC in video mode, but which has no discernible affect at all. I have lots of video footage of traditional Nepalese dancing which is way too dark.

Is there some easy program which allows brightening and noise reduction of video? This stuff I've recorded seems almost unique in the sense it's not available on commercial CD or DVD which leans heavily towards Bollywood style fantasy with smooth-skinned city folk doing choreographed dance routines against a harsh, mountainous environment. Unrealistic and artificial, and total crap.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I would imagine that a P&S camera that has contrast settings from minus 5 to plus 5 would have a greater potential for DR improvement at the lowest setting. You should try it. I'd be surprised if the difference between DR in RAW mode, and jpeg at minimum contrast, is greater than 1/3 of a stop.

I will, as soon as I get a chance. And I'll post comparison images with full EXIF, just like the other comparison I did. I'll probably post some ISO 400, 100% crops to compare sharpening and noise reduction, as well. If there's anything in particular you'd like to see other than minimum contrast, let me know.

[John Sheehy]

Jonathan,
Cameras vary. As I mentioned, my 5D has about 0.8 stops less highlight latitude than RAW when contrast is at a minimum, but 1.33 to 1.66 stops less latitude when contrast is at a maximum.

Don't forget that when you set the camera to minimum contrast, the extra highlights just below the JPEG luminance clipping point are extremely compressed, and are useless for any real "exposure to the right".  They are only useful to leave as extra specular highlights, cloud detail, and such.  They are basically trashed, quality-wise.

Washed out and flat images should be no problem for someone prepared to spend time processing images in PS. As I mentioned before, conversions of RAW overexposed images (full exposure to the right) with settings designed to extract maximum highlight detail using ACR, can look rather dull and flat.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which, of course, is the fault of nothing but a RAW converter that second-guesses the user's needs.  The RAW data is not "washed out" or flat" in the highlights compared to any other range.  This is the crux of this crisis; people are making all kinds of assessments of the value of RAW, but we still don't have good RAW converters yet.  It is a very sorry state of affairs that digital photography is in right now, with RAW being discounted without having ever been fully utilized.

[Ray]

Don't forget that when you set the camera to minimum contrast, the extra highlights just below the JPEG luminance clipping point are extremely compressed, and are useless for any real "exposure to the right".  They are only useful to leave as extra specular highlights, cloud detail, and such.  They are basically trashed, quality-wise.

John,
I'm not sure I quite follow what you're saying here. To get the same highlight detail with a jpeg as a RAW image, requires an exposure of the jpeg image between 2/3rds and 1 stop less (with the 5D). Whilst such a jpeg image appears to have equal highlight detail, at a machine level it possibly doesn't. I don't know. I'm just looking at appearances.

But there's no doubt that such a jpeg exposure at slightly less than 1 stop exposure, has less detail in the shadows than the RAW image, which is indicative of a lower dynamic range.

The RAW data is not "washed out" or flat" in the highlights compared to any other range.  This is the crux of this crisis; people are making all kinds of assessments of the value of RAW, but we still don't have good RAW converters yet.  It is a very sorry state of affairs that digital photography is in right now, with RAW being discounted without having ever been fully utilized.

Yes. I understand that. When it comes to extracting the greatest amount of dynamic range, I find that ACR is marginally better than Raw Shooter Premium, but RSP tends to produce a more detailed image and is easier to use with regards to issues of color vibrancy. I often prefer RSP and look forward to receiving a free copy of the first commercial issue of Lightroom   .

[jani]

What I think is funny, though, is that Canon is including a SpeedLite compatible flash socket on a P&S.

Even eager advanced shooters won't be using that at a lot.

And what's that business with an on/off setting, anyway?