Open Letter to Canon

[howiesmith]

... nothing I can come up with seems like a compelling reason except that they gratuitously decided to screw over serious amateurs. ...

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How did you "come up" with that?  Seems very unlikely that is a part of Canon's business model.

Sometimes when my wife and I are watching TV, she will comment that "that was a really bad commercial."  Maybe so, but perhaps it was a great ad but she is not part of the intended audience.

In his review, Mr.Reichmann concluded:

"Overall I was very impressed with the Canon G7. It does a lot of things right within the context of its price, size and its likely intended constituency."  Empahsis added

(The conclusion does go on to consider how it might have been better, or hit a bigger market.)

[Smithcottage]

The camera that actually answers the questions and reservations posed by Micheal about the G7 is the Fuji E 900. It too has a viewfinder, full manual operation,and superb image quality. It has strong low light capabilities. It has 9 Meg with very high resolution. Plus, it shoots in RAW.

Henry Smith
Glensummitimages.com

[aaykay]

The camera that actually answers the questions and reservations posed by Micheal about the G7 is the Fuji E 900. It too has a viewfinder, full manual operation,and superb image quality. It has strong low light capabilities. It has 9 Meg with very high resolution. Plus, it shoots in RAW.

Henry Smith
Glensummitimages.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A key feature missing from the Fuji is a hotshoe, something that comes with the G7 with the missing RAW feature.

[aaykay]

Out of curiosity, how do they implement an Optical viewfinder in a P&S camera without a mirror/prism ?  I always thought they came with Electronic viewfinders.

Thanks in advance.

[Smithcottage]

A key feature missing from the Fuji is a hotshoe, something that comes with the G7 with the missing RAW feature.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 I do wish it had the whole deal like my Oly 5050. It is still a wonderful camera.

[aaykay]

I do wish it had the whole deal like my Oly 5050. It is still a wonderful camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bottomline, the G7 has everything one would need, if they stupidly had not excluded the RAW from it.

[Paulo Bizarro]

There's no doubt that the G7 with RAW would be an even better camera. There is also no doubt that even without RAW, it is a very good camera.

Many street photographers who get published in respectable magazines and newspapers shoot jpeg. I mean, are you really after "fine art" photography when shooting in the street? Or after a special moment?

[dkusner]

I mean, are you really after "fine art" photography when shooting in the street? Or after a special moment?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just want ownership of the unprocessed image, and the ability to re-process it. I don't want to leave this decision irretrievably to the camera. Polaroids are convenient but they're not what I want.

[MatthewCromer]

Sony DSC-R1 - this is the one that came closest, but its RAW files are so large and write times so slow that I couldn't justify it. I so hope there is an R2 coming.

The R1 is a kickass camera, and it buffers RAW with a smart "flushing" buffer.  I never use the jpeg mode anymore, even for family photography.  For landscape shooting, I hardly ever even notice the buffer limits -- occasionally I will watch the last half second of a buffer flushing when I am shooting quickly.

I convert all my R1 raws to DNG format, which complete addresses the file storage issue.

I'd like a bigger buffer, sure, but the camera has superb image quality. . .  You won't see anything like this camera again.  Get it while you can!

[jcarlin]

The camera that actually answers the questions and reservations posed by Micheal about the G7 is the Fuji E 900. It too has a viewfinder, full manual operation,and superb image quality. It has strong low light capabilities. It has 9 Meg with very high resolution. Plus, it shoots in RAW.

Henry Smith
Glensummitimages.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Any more six seconds to store a RAW image means that RAW isn't meaningful.

[MatthewCromer]

Any more six seconds to store a RAW image means that RAW isn't meaningful.

That's simply not true.  Especially if the camera has a RAW buffer so you don't have to wait for the second shot.

My former Sony 828 had RAW and no buffer and took about 14 seconds to flush.  It was annoying but I used RAW for landscape exclusively.  The only time it was seriously problematic was when I was shooting in rapidly changing light.

My R1 has a smart buffer, takes about 6 seconds to flush after the buffer is full (2 immediate shots, then wait 6 seconds if the first two shots were right behind each other).  Usually I never even see the buffer full condition shooting landscape.  And I do all my family pictures in RAW too, and rarely get slowed down even then since the buffer is smart and continuously flushing to media.

Of course, a bigger buffer would be welcome, but even the existing buffer is better than nothing, and the 828 was very usable for landscape photography excepting some frustration in rapidly changing light.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I just want ownership of the unprocessed image, and the ability to re-process it. I don't want to leave this decision irretrievably to the camera. Polaroids are convenient but they're not what I want.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Granted. RAW gives you more options in processing the image. But JPEG also allows for some control (contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc), you just have to be careful and get to know your camera, before pressing the shutter.

[jcarlin]

That's simply not true.  Especially if the camera has a RAW buffer so you don't have to wait for the second shot.

My former Sony 828 had RAW and no buffer and took about 14 seconds to flush.  It was annoying but I used RAW for landscape exclusively.  The only time it was seriously problematic was when I was shooting in rapidly changing light.

My R1 has a smart buffer, takes about 6 seconds to flush after the buffer is full (2 immediate shots, then wait 6 seconds if the first two shots were right behind each other).  Usually I never even see the buffer full condition shooting landscape.  And I do all my family pictures in RAW too, and rarely get slowed down even then since the buffer is smart and continuously flushing to media.

Of course, a bigger buffer would be welcome, but even the existing buffer is better than nothing, and the 828 was very usable for landscape photography excepting some frustration in rapidly changing light.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed that IF a smart buffer is present it makes the flush time much less of an issue.  My point is for that for a camera that is meant to capture the decisive moment, having to wait six seconds means missing the shot most of the time.  With landscapes this is decidedly different, though I doubt that is the primary use of many G7 or E900 owners due to the lack of a real wide angle lens, i.e. <28mm eq on the wide end.  My reading of the E900 review at

[a href=\"http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_e900-review/]http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_e900-review/[/url]

was that once a picture was taken in RAW format another couldn’t be taken in less than six seconds.  A buffer of 3 images, as is the case for many low end DSLRs’, would be more than adequate even if the time required to flush all the images was 18 seconds.  The argument with landscapes is a bit of a red haring given that if one has that kind of time to wait, one could easily configure the camera for a “correct” JPEG capture to begin with, or potentially take several with different settings.

[dkusner]

How did you "come up" with that?  Seems very unlikely that is a part of Canon's business model.

Your tireless persistence in condescendingly explaining Canon's business model to Canon users in multiple threads is much appreciated by someone, I'm sure.

Also, I was engaging in what seemed like obvious hyperbole. This does not mean that I required a rebuke or lecture on Canon's marketing strategy. It means that I considered being screwed over the effect of their marketing strategy on myself and others, and considered it pretty gratuitous and inexplicable, even after reading and understanding your explanations.

In his review, Mr.Reichmann concluded:

"Overall I was very impressed with the Canon G7. It does a lot of things right within the context of its price, size and its likely intended constituency."  Empahsis added

(The conclusion does go on to consider how it might have been better, or hit a bigger market.)

Yes, we can read also. I share Michael's disappointment exactly, since I would be in that bigger market, and feel pretty certain that Raw Capture would have been a nearly costless feeature for Canon to include. In fact, I'd have to believe that from the perspective of this single product, leaving off Raw Capture was probably a greater cost than leaving it in, since it probably entailed changes to firmware, documentation, and testing procedure, and that their decision had to do purely with product line differentiation. The sensor data is there already -- it could probably be made available with nothing but a firmware update.

But I couldn't care less what Canon's marketing strategy is. I simply want RAW capture in high end digicams, and expect it from Canon, hence the disappointment. And if they no longer consider me in their target audience, I will gladly return the consideration. I can't believe it matters much to Canon either way in overall profitability, from the perspective of this single camera or from that of their overall product line, which is what makes it an extra slap in the face.

[aaykay]

Agreed that IF a smart buffer is present it makes the flush time much less of an issue.  My point is for that for a camera that is meant to capture the decisive moment, having to wait six seconds means missing the shot most of the time. 

Sorry, the key flaw in your argument is the assumption that RAW cannot be turned off if need be.  Yes, in a camera with RAW capability, you can turn it off in situations where you don't want to wait six seconds between shots (when capturing 'decisive moments' as you put it) and turn it on in situations where you really desire full control of the image development process.

When you are out for street photography, turn off RAW (assuming you are taking quick shots where time between shots need to be minimal).  When taking group pictures of friends and family and/or landscape, turn on RAW, since a 6 second delay would not matter in the least bit in such situations.

[james_elliot]

The R1 is a kickass camera, and it buffers RAW with a smart "flushing" buffer.  I never use the jpeg mode anymore, even for family photography.  For landscape shooting, I hardly ever even notice the buffer limits -- occasionally I will watch the last half second of a buffer flushing when I am shooting quickly.

I convert all my R1 raws to DNG format, which complete addresses the file storage issue.

I'd like a bigger buffer, sure, but the camera has superb image quality. . .  You won't see anything like this camera again.  Get it while you can!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I completely agree. Moreover, with fast SD cards, the slow RAW buffering issue is not really a problem anymore.

[Radiohead]

After much umming and ahhing I've ordered a G7 today. I'm generally not that happy wandering out the streets and city centres with my 5D and pricey glass. Getting that damaged or stolen is a concern these days for me. I need my more serious kit for paid work so can't risk wandering around with it for fun when I have a wedding coming up. More often than not that means me leaving it at home.

So, I'd tried the much-vaunted GR-D in the summer and, whilst decent enough, the shocking write times for RAW files made that option unusable. Short of the Epson/Leica rangefinders there's not much I can see on the market that gives me manual control, is affordable and has solid build quality and a useable viewfinder. The lack of RAW alone is a pain, but not enough to make the G7 undesirable for its intended uses. Silkypix 3.0 is an interesting option here btw, as it claims to be able to treat JPG/TIFF files like RAW and early indications are that it might solve some of the problems the lack of RAW could bring.

Time will tell - the camera will arrive tomorrow all being well. If it turns out to be less than ideal over the coming week it'll be returned.

[PEHowland]

I have created an online petition requesting Canon to implement a raw output mode in a future firmware update.  I will forward to them once there are sufficient signatures.

If you support the idea of a raw output mode in the G7, please take a couple of moments to sign the petition online here.

Many thanks!

Paul.

The text of the petition reads:

We owners of the Canon Powershot G7 camera request Canon to include a raw output capability in the next release of the camera's firmware. As serious users of the camera, we find the lack of this capability in the camera to be a limitation in the following ways:

- No choice of colour space beyond the limited sRGB space
- No flexibility in noise reduction approach, so important on a 1/1.8" CCD sensor
- No lossless correction of white balance errors
- No custom curves for converting to jpeg
- No scope for correcting minor exposure errors after capture

In addition, as supporters of the Canon brand, we believe this to be in the interests of Canon as well, as the lack of this mode has been a consistent criticism in reviews by the photography media. Addition of this mode to the G7 would provide significant market differentiation of the G7 over competing models, such as the Nikon P5000. We believe that it would not impact on low-end DSLR sales, as any photographer interested in raw will be well aware of the many other advantages a DSLR offers over a compact camera.