Canon digicams with no RAW option?

[oldcsar]

Is there a growing trend in the market for dropping RAW capabilities in the latest digital cameras? In regards to Canon, the "S" series had many manual functions and RAW capabilities, which made it an appealing option for D-SLR owners who wanted a discrete, compact camera in certain circumstances. The S70 had RAW, but the S80 only shoots JPEGS. The latest Powershot S3 Pro IS, even though it has "Pro" as its designation, has no RAW mode. No doubt there are experienced photographers out there who still prefer JPEG, but I can't help but think that this is a de-evolution of all the digicam's progress.

Does anybody know if there's a technical reason why RAW is being dropped in such models? I know that since digicams don't have the memory buffers of DSLRs, writing RAW files to cards takes a very long time by comparison. With megapixels progressing to 8 and beyond in digicams, I'm guessing that creating a usable RAW mode is becoming more challenging without a hefty buffer. Cheap DSLRs are now becoming the norm, and I'm speculating that in order to keep compact camera cost below that of DSLRs, they can't support RAW mode.

It could also be possible that with the increasing amount of pixels on the generally tiny CCD of compact cameras, sensor noise is becoming such a problem that they're using aggressive in-camera noise reduction in order to make the images appear more usable, and not offerring RAW either simplifies the process or conceals it.

I apologize if this is too much speculation, but these are just my uninformed thoughts on the matter. If anybody has any knowledge on why RAW is being dropped from the latest digital cameras, I'd appreciate any information you can offer.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I also think it is a shame, this business of not having RAW capability in more recent digicam models. Particularly when older models had it. At least from Canon offerings, I think that the reason is purely profit related; if you want RAW, you need to get a DSLR.

The DSLR market is where the big profit margins currently are; think lenses, extras, and so on. That is why Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic are making aggressive entries in this market. There are big profits to be made.

A few niche cameras, like the Ricoh GRD and Panasonic Lumix LX1 (and soon to be LX2), still offer RAW, which is great. A couple of offerings from Fuji also feature RAW mode. And that is about it.

But what is clear is that the big contenders in the DSLR arena (Canon and Nikon) have dropped RAW from their digicam line-up. Of course, one other reason, is that only a small fraction of digicam buyers actually use RAW; the vast majority of digicam buyers want simply a P&S to print directly, without spending time in the computer with RAW conversion and image editing. This is why I now have a Ricoh GRD and a Canon SD700IS. Horses for courses!

Of course the market is so volatile, and trends are no more than that, trends; I am still hoping for a camera that combines several good things under one package. Who knows, maybe the successor of the S80 (must be around corner, if one trusts the one year replacement cycle) will have RAW again?

[Chris_T]

only a small fraction of digicam buyers actually use RAW; the vast majority of digicam buyers want simply a P&S to print directly, without spending time in the computer with RAW conversion and image editing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Another reason I think is that supporting RAW in a camera adds overhead in both hw and sw. The manufacturers are just cutting costs.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I'm just glad I picked up my S60 when I did. At that time I just assumed any Canon would shoot raw. I've gotten many worthwhile (raw) shots with it when the 10D was too much to carry around, and I was shocked when I heard that later Canons had dropped the raw.

Eric

[Lisa Nikodym]

I feel your pain.   I recently got a Fujifilm F30 as a pocket digicam to carry with me all the times I don't have the whole DSLR bag, and the lack of RAW is one of its two major annoyances (along with a lack of histograms).  That wouldn't be so bad except that its dynamic range is considerably worse than my DSLRs, and having RAW to work with would help recover more dynamic range.  It's really too bad - the F30 otherwise has excellent image quality - I've made 12"x18" enlargements from it that look quite good; but my first excursion with it unfortunately had blown highlights in about 90% of the images.  At least it has exposure compensation, so now I can bracket.  It would be a dramatically better camera if it had histograms and RAW capability, though.

Lisa

[Jonathan Wienke]

Which is why I bought an Olympus SP-350 to fill the pocket camera niche. RAW, full manual control, a hot shoe (you can attach a 550EX in manual mode, and it works fine, but is about 3x the size of the camera), live preview histogram (cool, but it shows about 2/3 of a stop more exposure than the exposure histogram during review), good macro capability, a decent movie mode, and you can find them for about $250 USD. Its main disadvantages are slow shooting in RAW mode (1 shot every 10 seconds or so), only 3x zoom (38-114mm equivalent), and a non-articulated LCD.

It's not the be-all camera for everyone, but it offers very good value for the price.

[Chris_T]

slow shooting in RAW mode (1 shot every 10 seconds or so)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71793\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is one big problem with shooting in RAW. In fact, it makes shooting moving subjects unacceptible.

The 10 seconds lag time probably means that there is no or little buffering in the camera. That's one way to cut the cost down.

[Jonathan Wienke]

It's definitely not the tool of choice for action shooters; the AF/shutter lag is another point of deficiency for that task. It's OK for a pocket digicam, but nowhere near the same class as the 1D-MkII. But it's about 1/20th the price of a 1D-MkII + 24-70/2.8L...