"Why do people talk so much about the lack of RAW on the G7?".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89668\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Answer: Because they've been hoodwinked into believing that RAW is a panacea for all image deficiencies. We like to believe in miracles and we also like good conspiracy theories. Consider the popularity of the Da Vinci Code.
The amount of hot air generated is often inversely proportional to the quantity of facts presented. I've seen no comparisons in this long thread so far demonstrating the amazing capabilities of RAW mode in a P&S camera, whether it be the G6 or the Lumix LX2. Why is that? Could it be there's nothing much to shout about?
Let's suppose we could get a consensus of opinion as to a percentage increase in image quality that potentially could be achieved using RAW instead of fine jpeg. Whatever percentage that may be, lets call it 10% for argument's sake and let's focus on dynamic range which seems to be the one thing one cannot recover from a processed jpeg. (One can always get an improved white balance with some stuffing around, even if it means placing a grey card in the scene.)
With DSLRs such as the 20D and 5D one can probably recover, on average, about 0.75 of a stop of DR without blowing any color channels. In other words, an apparent over-exposure of 0.75 EV results in a full exposure to the right, something which one cannot achieve with a jpeg shot. The same exposure in jpeg mode would result in irretrievably blown highlights. People who use DSLRs in jpeg mode are depriving themselves of about 0.75 stops of dynamic range, but that's only a rough figure that varies with scene content of course. With grey skies one can recover sometimes as much as 1.5 stops. With very saturated colors, apparent over-exposure would have to be less than 0.75 stops.
Whether the DR gain is 0.35 stops or 1.5 stops, it's significant and worthwhile with a camera that has a respectable DR to begin with. I can only guess what the relationship might be between pixel pitch and DR in cameras with the same pixel count. Comparing a 2 micron pixel with a 6 micron pixel, I tend to think that RAW capability might give us, on average, a 1/10th of a stop DR advantage over jpeg, for the same amount of work and skill.
Is this what you guys are screaming about?
Canon, please gives us the opportunity to spend hours of our time recovering 1/10th of a stop of DR with sophisticated desktop programs and RAW converters.
