I asked you to provide the data, where can I find it please? URL and numbers if you have them for us.
Also please explain how your conclusions about the number of cameras supporting DNG equates into the number of people who care or don't care for such an option.
only after you do this for the number of people who can't do w/o DNG - DNG proponents were first in this thread - hence you shall come w/ your numbers first... and let me guess - you own cameras w/ native DNG support and you use Adobe software and you do not have any real issues w/ non DNG raw files because of that.
IOW, if 5% of market share supports a system that provides DNG as an option, what methodology did you use to conclude the other 95% of those users don't care about DNG?
and why do you think that 5% care about DNG and not just to have cameras/lenses that they want (like if people are buying Leica or Ricoh/Pentax to have DNG
)... and again the same note - DNG proponents started first here (and there) so you please come up with you methodology to prove something... note that nobody disputes that you and some other people (you do not have any statistics how many) want DNG, however neither you, nor Reichman, no others so far were able to influence no manufacturers except niche ones... that is the market answer to the amount and seriousness of that market demand... which says - nobody cares really except niche players.
I think your arguments are nonsensical but I'd like to find out if you have any facts or figures to back up your belief. Otherwise I'd find your arguments both nonsensical and without any facts.
I think your arguments are the same and you are trying to turn the table and for some numbers w/o providing them first to support your claims... again I did not hear any good explanation about what Panasonic had to do w/ optics correction...
You're either part of the problem or you're part of the solution. I have to assume you perhaps shoot raw and you don't care for DNG as an option. Great. Don't use it. There's as yet zero support from your camp that it would be unduly expensive to provide an option for DNG to those who do want it.
DNG is not a solution - solution is when manufacturer discloses both format (and most of raw formats are pretty much documented by crowdsourcing, by individuals and companies, resulting in Coffin's work and its refactoring like libraw) and
the content... DNG does not force them to disclose the content fully hence it is not a solution... DNG ties the hands when something new is to be released (see Panasonic)... DNG is still controlled by Adobe (and remember - Google makes hardware, MS makes hardware... there is good chance that Adobe will start making hardware too... and which hardware Adobe might start to make ?) - no changes or additions to DNG standards so far can be done w/ Adobe's OK regardless of where DNG standard was submitted... free != safe.
Again, this is all politics. If enough customers make a stink for what they want, the more likely we'll get it. The more people such as yourself defend the practices of the big camera companies, the less good done for the photo and imaging industry.
big camera companies do not want their hands tied by necessity to wait for approval from others and by disclosing changes in advance to their competition... push shall be not for DNG, but for documenting their own format _and_ data inside post factum - that is a more reasonable goal...
Now if you have actual facts and figures that using Canon as an example, that company would undergo an unfair expense to implement DNG versus actual numbers of users who, when told the options would or wouldn’t use it, we're all ears.
only after you will come up with facts and figures about the same DNG...
OK, so where in those two stat's does this explicitly and accurately account for these differences due solely to DNG?
again - you shall come up w/ some numbers about DNG first...
I suspect vastly more images are captured as JPEGs world wide and within all digital capture devices than any other format. That therefore equates to my suggesting that people who purchases cameras don't care about the option to capture raw? Silly thought pattern.
please do not put your words into my mouth... and then in camera JPGs are just that - same raw images converted by in camera raw converter... not really a different thing from raw images converted by off camera OEM raw converter...