This is why no RAW on the G7

[howiesmith]

To the non-technical people ...

Or is it just hand waving, too?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you referring to me?  What dwould you base that statement on?  Any evidence or support, or just more opinion?

[howiesmith]

Your accusation of arrogance while simultaneously dismissing experienced programmers' opinions on programming is a nice show of double standards.

What are your qualifications for having any opinions on such programming?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I did not say experienced programmers' opinions were wrong.  I did say they failed to support their opinions with anything more substantial than if, probably, assuming.

No one has yet to provide a substantiated cost in dollars for adding RAW.  And the decision not to include RAW may have been much more complex that a simply cost per camera.  Business people and the technical people don't alwaya agree on product.

I don't disagree that RAW has technical benefits to a few users, but that may bot produce the business results Canon wants.  Even if it does make some people quite upset.

[howiesmith]

What are your qualifications for having any opinions on such programming?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think I ever said the progtammers were wrong about required efforts and cosrs.  I am not a programmer and haven't been for several years.  But I do have enough engineering and business experience not to just take somebodies word for something, just because they "think" so.  If the programmers here are so sure, let them offer some solid, varifiable evidence.  All I know about these experts is what they say about their creds on LL.

[bjanes]

That's an interesting example indeed because:

- The people who were most vocal about this were non Nikon users (MR and Jeff Schewe to cite 2) - which is a clear common point with the Canon G7 (most people in this thread don't own one)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89765\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am one Nikon user who was very upset with that decision since Adobe Camera Raw (my preferred converter) couldn't read the white balance. I very much appreciated the support of such prominent photographers as MR and Jeff Schewe. Fortunately, Nikon did provide the mini-SDK

- Nikon being motivated by market control is just yet another hypothesis that is not backed up by facts. Nikon has never suied any of the companies that reversed engineered the very weak "encryption", and also released a mini-SDK for those companies like Adobe who didn't want to reverse engineer that part of the raw file. The whole story just showed that Nikon had not properlly understood the (North American) market and not anticipated the consequences of a mostly technical decision.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89765\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, you may remember that a Nikon official stated that no one really needed Photoshop, except perhaps to remove a light pole. He suggested that everything could be done in Nikon Capture.

Small software companies such as Bibble quickly broke the encryption; after all you can't get blood from a turnip and no one would bother suing them. However, Adobe with its deep pockets did not even consider risking litigation by circumventing the encryption. In addition, intellectual property is their lifeblood and hacking someone else's software would not look good.

Fortunately, Nikon came to its senses and the whole affair is nothing more than an unpleasant memory. The lesson to be learned is that it is not good business to antagonize your good customers with WB encryption or lack of a raw file.

[BernardLanguillier]

No intend to re-write history here. We all know the various opinions on this topic. I mostly disgaree with yours, but both are just opinions mostly not supported by facts.

Let's just say that Adobe got very good lawyers and that Nikon didn't even bother commenting.

This again is very similar to what we have here about the G7.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jonathan Wienke]

Well, you may remember that a Nikon official stated that no one really needed Photoshop, except perhaps to remove a light pole. He suggested that everything could be done in Nikon Capture.

...

Fortunately, Nikon came to its senses and the whole affair is nothing more than an unpleasant memory. The lesson to be learned is that it is not good business to antagonize your good customers with WB encryption or lack of a raw file.

The Nikon WB encryption and Canon RAW support removal are similar incidents of corporate arrogance trying to control how their customers process their images. Encryption has one and only one purpose: to control access to information. Encrypting WB offers no benefit to the photographer whatsoever. It does not make the setting more accurate, and requires an additional (although trivial) decoding step to make it of any use to the RAW converter. Nikon was trying to force their customers to convert their RAWs with Nikon Capture, made stupid public statements to attempt to PR-spin-justify their arrogance, and ended up with egg on thir faces.

Canon is doing the same thing with the G7: trying to control how G7 owners process their images, and force photographers who do not want the camera to control their image processing to buy DSLRs. There are no compelling technical or financial (at least in terms of additional cost per unit) reasons for omitting RAW support, and many sound reasons for offering it. Hopefully, Canon's customers will complain enough, and Canon will abandon this silliness.

[Robert Roaldi]

I don't think I ever said the progtammers were wrong about required efforts and cosrs. I am not a programmer and haven't been for several years. But I do have enough engineering and business experience not to just take somebodies word for something, just because they "think" so. If the programmers here are so sure, let them offer some solid, varifiable evidence. All I know about these experts is what they say about their creds on LL.

That's fair enough. But, I could never meet your burden of proof and I wasn't trying to. I don't work for Canon and have no insider knowledge.

I think it's fair to summarize this thread as one in which customers are voicing their displeasure about a product design decision. The topic came up about how the cost of implementation of RAW could have been a factor in the decision and some people (me among them) simply voiced their educated opinion that this was not plausible. Proving it never entered into it. But I think it's still a reasonable point of view, even setting aside technical opinions. The G2, G3, G5 and G6 were seemingly successful products and they provided RAW support. It is difficult to argue that the RAW support implementation cost had become more onerous with the G7. Typically, as a product line life cycle ages and matures, features increase. It's odd, and annoying to many, that this wasn't the case with the G7.

[howiesmith]

That's fair enough. But, I could never meet your burden of proof and I wasn't trying to. I don't work for Canon and have no insider knowledge.

I think it's fair to summarize this thread as one in which customers are voicing their displeasure about a product design decision. The topic came up about how the cost of implementation of RAW could have been a factor in the decision and some people (me among them) simply voiced their educated opinion that this was not plausible. Proving it never entered into it. But I think it's still a reasonable point of view, even setting aside technical opinions. The G2, G3, G5 and G6 were seemingly successful products and they provided RAW support. It is difficult to argue that the RAW support implementation cost had become more onerous with the G7. Typically, as a product line life cycle ages and matures, features increase. It's odd, and annoying to many, that this wasn't the case with the G7.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wasn't expecting proof, just some varifiable evidence.  It seems that the guy from Canon offered a learned opinion and was immediately blown off as arrogant and more or less stupid.  Just putting Canon spin on it.  Maybe so, but that opinion is likely not bsed on anything but wanting it to be true.  (Becasue I don't believe Canon, they are liers.)

This whole RAW thing boiled up because some folks think Canon should have included it on the G7 and arrogantly decided not to.  Never mind that maybe Canon had some very good technical and/or business reasons to leave it out.  In stead, just a bunch of whining about I want it, I expect it, and the SOBs screwed me.  After all, I am smarter than Canon because I used to be a programmer.

One thing I have noticed is something gets said on the internet and before you know it, it is a carved in stone fact.  Just because some self proclaimed expert said or thought thus and such.

I had to snicker to myself when one protester claimed the cost would be a few cents per camera.  No basis provided except the person used to be a progammer and all that data are there anyway.  When pressed, the number of G7s to be produced was not known (essential as far as I know in computing a per camera cost) and the cost had risen to $1 per camera.  And a $1 in cost at the Canon factory rarely shows up as a $1 on the price tag at Samy's.

It seeme to me that the G7 does not have RAW and won't.  Maybe it is time to get over it and go on.

[howiesmith]

"I really love the Canon G5, mostly because it was black..."  So Canon must add RAW?   I really love the Canon G7, mostly because it's black and has RAW... .

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.

[jani]

I wasn't expecting proof, just some varifiable evidence.

That's even worse.

Verifiable evidence is impossible to provide without breaking NDAs.

And still, you couldn't verify it, unless you had similar access yourself.

Such information could only be provided if Canon were willing to release it.

Obviously, they aren't, and there we are, waving arms and hands at eachother.

I think you've also answered my earlier question by now.

[howiesmith]

That's even worse.

Verifiable evidence is impossible to provide without breaking NDAs.

And still, you couldn't verify it, unless you had similar access yourself.

Such information could only be provided if Canon were willing to release it.

Obviously, they aren't, and there we are, waving arms and hands at eachother.

I think you've also answered my earlier question by now.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess by verifiable evidence I meant something more than presenting one's opinion as fact.  A reference to a recognized authority with the same or similar idea would be nice.  I have no prolem with hand and arm waving as long as it is clear that is what is being presented as fact.

I had to look up NDA since I assumed ( right or wrong) you weren't referring to New Drug Applications to the FDA.  I have never had to deal with non-disclosure agreements since everything I have worked with was open to the public (nothing to hide) or my employer trusted me to keep my mouth shut appropriatly.

If Canon is the only one that knows the real reason (and I guess that is the truth), then maybe it is time to either believe what Canon is saying, or say you doubt what they are saying but have no basis, and stop saying you know better than Canon what they were thinking.  Just say you don't really know but are guessing that ... .

I'm sorry, I don't know what earlier question you are refering to.  I hope I answered it for you rather than have you just assume an answer as fact.

[Ray]

WTF do you think I've been talking about this whole thread? I've been shooting RAW with the Olympus SP-350, and the differences between the camera JPEGs and what I can get from RAW are NOT trivial.  I can get an additional stop of DR from the highlights in ACR over the camera JPEGs.

Geez! After 5 pages of mostly hot air, we now have a few facts beginning to trickle in. At least it's a start.

One whole stop of additional DR in the highlights?? That seems suspiciously high to me. Have you any explanation as to why this increase seems to be greater in absolute terms (and very much more in terms of percentage of DR) than the additional highlight headroom one would expect from the 5D using RAW? When I have the time, I'll revisit this issue with the 5D. My experiments so far have indicated that the differences in the jpeg based review with respect to histogram and blown highlight flashing on my 5D, vary by about 1.33 stops between maximum and minimum contrast settings. In other words, with contrast at a minimum setting, a small amount of highlight flashing is indicative of a RAW exposure that  requires an EC setting in ACR of around minus 0.66 stops to recover high light detail. 2/3rds of a stop less exposure removes all highlight flashing, but I'm making an assumption that the highlight warning is accurate with respect to the jpeg image. I haven't actually compared a jpeg image with 0.66 stops less exposure with a RAW image with 0.66 stops more exposure.

It's perhaps very revealing that a Google search on RAW performance of P&S cameras does not throw up much at all. However, the Olympus SP-350 does not appear to have spectacular image quality, rating around 6 or 7 out of 10 in some reviews, ie. good as opposed to excellent. Being as cynical as those who claim arrogance on the part of Canon for not including RAW on the G7, I could claim that Olympus decided to offer a RAW mode on the SP-350 because they realised their in-camera processing was not on a par with the best out there. But that would be speculation. However, to get to the bottom of this, we need a reviewer such as dpreview to do some serious comparisons between RAW and jpeg (at minimum contrast and saturation setting) as well as between RAW with one brand and jpeg with another brand.

Alternatively, you guys could send me your P&S cameras (with RAW support) for an unbiased, impartial and dispassionate comparison   .

[NikosR]

I think that people are trying to read too much in Canon's decision, what with all the discussion about bits and linear spaces and DR.

For me, Canon's decision was simple marketing, influenced by the likes of dpreview and other forums:

The sensor is inherently very noisy. Their jpeg processor hides this fact quite well. Providing RAW would leave them open to reviewers and forum commentators really looking at the level of noise before their jpeg engine does its NR thing, and comparing it to their previous generation digicams. No good for their Japanese marketing minds.

They can get away with that decision because they believe (and I think they're right) that most of their target market couldn't care less about RAW.

But some of this target market would be influenced by reports of noisy sensor (based on reviewing the RAW output). The label of 'noisy sensor' would stick, and most of their taget market wouldn't dig too much to understand the differences of RAW without NR and jpeg+NR. They would just read Phil's comments about the noisy sensor.

Clever decision IMHO. I think that if the MP wars persist along with the noise related pixel peeping, this will bring the end of RAW in the digicam sector (and maybe in entry-level dSLR as well).

Look at the Fujifilm F30 (which I happen to own). Carries the label of 'very low noise'. In fact, its NR has a really adverse effect on anything more than 100 ISO, plainly obvious on anything larger than 4x6. But nobody complains. Everybody says the F30 is a very good High ISO performer in its class. That wouldn't be the case if it provided RAW, I believe.

As simple as that.

[Ray]

I think that people are trying to read too much in Canon's decision, what with all the discussion about bits and linear spaces and DR.

For me, Canon's decision was simple marketing, influenced by the likes of dpreview and other forums:

The sensor is inherently very noisy. Their jpeg processor hides this fact quite well. Providing RAW would leave them open to reviewers and forum commentators really looking at the level of noise before their jpeg engine does its NR thing, and comparing it to their previous generation digicams. No good for their Japanese marketing minds.

They can get away with that decision because they believe (and I think they're right) that most of their target market couldn't care less about RAW.

But some of this target market would be influenced by reports of noisy sensor (based on reviewing the RAW output). The label of 'noisy sensor' would stick, and most of their taget market wouldn't dig too much to understand the differences of RAW without NR and jpeg+NR. They would just read Phil's comments about the noisy sensor.

Clever decision IMHO. I think that if the MP wars persist along with the noise related pixel peeping, this will bring the end of RAW in the digicam sector (and maybe in entry-level dSLR as well).

Look at the Fujifilm F30 (which I happen to own). Carries the label of 'very low noise'. In fact, its NR has a really adverse effect on anything more than 100 ISO, plainly obvious on anything larger than 4x6. But nobody complains. Everybody says the F30 is a very good High ISO performer in its class. That wouldn't be the case if it provided RAW, I believe.

As simple as that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good comment, and I mostly agree with it. The Fuji F30 has a high reputation for low noise, but this is marred by the fact that one cannot adjust contrast levels. Shadows therefore tend to be blacker than one might desire in high contrast scenes.Would a RAW mode be the solution? I doubt it. If it were, it makes no sense that Fuji have not provided it. There are a lot of so called experts in this thread who are speaking through their bum.

[bjanes]

I think that people are trying to read too much in Canon's decision, what with all the discussion about bits and linear spaces and DR.

For me, Canon's decision was simple marketing, influenced by the likes of dpreview and other forums:

The sensor is inherently very noisy. Their jpeg processor hides this fact quite well. Providing RAW would leave them open to reviewers and forum commentators really looking at the level of noise before their jpeg engine does its NR thing, and comparing it to their previous generation digicams. No good for their Japanese marketing minds.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A good point about the noise. The Nikon D200 has good noise characteristics as reported on DPReview from the JPEGS, but if you use ACR it is apparent that the smaller pixel size as compared to the D70 and D50 does make a difference. One would never know this from looking at the JPEGs, except perhaps for loss of detail with the NR.

Bill

[howiesmith]

A good point about the noise. The Nikon D200 has good noise characteristics as reported on DPReview from the JPEGS, but if you use ACR it is apparent that the smaller pixel size as compared to the D70 and D50 does make a difference. One would never know this from looking at the JPEGs, except perhaps for loss of detail with the NR.

Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you go all the back to the original post and read the provided link, noise is mentioned by Canon as their reason for deleting RAW from the G7.

[bjanes]

If you go all the back to the original post and read the provided link, noise is mentioned by Canon as their reason for deleting RAW from the G7.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's been a long time since that original post, but the noise issue is valid. However, with raw, one could use specialized NR in post processing, such as Noise Ninja or NeatImage, which might do a better job than the JPEG ASICS in the camera. Why not let the user decide? Also, with post processing NR one can use a surface mask to keep the NR away from the edges in the image.

[howiesmith]

It's been a long time since that original post, but the noise issue is valid. However, with raw, one could use specialized NR in post processing, such as Noise Ninja or NeatImage, which might do a better job than the JPEG ASICS in the camera. Why not let the user decide? Also, with post processing NR one can use a surface mask to keep the NR away from the edges in the image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The G7 is a consumer camera.  Canon really is not in the business of selling other vendor's software.  They have their own, for better or worse.  Ever wonder why Canon doesn't make a camera with a Nikon lens mount?  Or why camera makers don't get together and select a common lens mount?  Maybe it has something to do with Canon wanting you to buy a Canon lens with that Canon body.  (I also don't think Canon is really worried about Sigma or Tamron.)

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.

[DarkPenguin]

The G7 is a consumer camera.  Canon really is not in the business of selling other vendor's software.  They have their own, for better or worse.  Ever wonder why Canon doesn't make a camera with a Nikon lens mount?  Or why camera makers don't get together and select a common lens mount?  Maybe it has something to do with Canon wanting you to buy a Canon lens with that Canon body.  (I also don't think Canon is really worried about Sigma or Tamron.)

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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So true.  Having that RAW file option deep down in a menu is something that your typical point and shoot consumer would just absolutely stumble over.  How could they not enable it?  They couldn't.  They'd have to.  And from there it would be a nightmare of sales of non canon software.  Hoo!  Where would that lead?

[jani]

The G7 is a consumer camera.

According to Canon USA, so is the 1Ds MkII.

You'll find it in "Consumer Products Home :: Camera :: EOS (SLR) Camera Systems".

They're also calling their SLRs "advanced professional looking".

However, they do call their own software "professional level".

As for the G7, they say:

"Canon's high-end PowerShot digital cameras incorporate the creative performance of a professional digital SLR camera and the compact convenience of a point-and-shoot."