Keytsa: Enough with all that Raw stupidity... Why would anyone use raw on these small sensors?! It would be same 8-bit pixel information as jpeg.
The major camera manufacturers invest substantial sums toward refining their image processing technologies. It's what they're most proud of as the hearts of their cameras and a key part of their proprietary competitive weaponry. Processing systems such as Canon's DIGIC system, Nikon's EXPEED system, and Fujifim's EXR system integrate the operation of the camera with the lens and sensor in an attempt to optimize the recorded image.
Using only Raw files from your camera is analogous to buying an uncooked meal from a fine restaurant, preferring to season and cook it at home.
"Raw stupidity?" If you don't get it, you just don't get it.
BrianK: One of the appeals of this class of camera is the ability to shoot in crappy weather conditions, which one would think might also be associated with less than ideal lighting. Nevertheless, and as far as I know, none of these cameras offer the option to save in uncompressed RAW format which would give one the most flexibility to make corrections to color balance, etc., i.e., the kinds of corrections one might want to be able to make when shooting in less than ideal conditions.
Makes no sense to me.
I hope that when DPReview gets around to its next round-up review of this class of camera that they raise at least a bit of a stink about this omission.
Very well could be, but adding RAW is mostly software plus a possibly larger buffer; adding it shouldn't be that big of a deal.
One of the appeals of this class of camera is the ability to shoot in crappy weather conditions, which one would think might also be associated with less than ideal lighting. Nevertheless, and as far as I know, none of these cameras offer the option to save in uncompressed RAW format which would give one the most flexibility to make corrections to color balance, etc., i.e., the kinds of corrections one might want to be able to make when shooting in less than ideal conditions.
Well, if they are trying to target a more serious "enthusiasts" market, then maybe they should try to include features that geeks might want.
Raw capability and slightly larger sensor nice, but sRGB without AdobeRGB?
Agree on the complaint about lack of raw. Without it, I'll keep looking and waiting.
7enderbender: Here is the problem: this discussion can go back and forth and back and forth. "You're a rip-off" - "But here are my expenses plus markup" etc etc.
I think part of the reason why a lot of photographers, artists and actually a lot of other businesses aren't doing so well is because they don't understand pricing.
Here's the rule: Never - and I mean never - justify your price based on your expenses. Yes, calculate your expenses to understand your profit margin. But that's between you, your spouse and the IRS. It is irrelevant to your client. They can care less about your three 5D Mark IIs and how much they cost you. The only reason they hire you is their perceived value they get from your pictures. That's it. End of story. There is no cost+markup argument.
Getting to the actual value is of course difficult in an artistic and emotional field.
That being said: Nikki Wagner should rethink her cost structure and business model a bit. Something is off there.
You're hitting the nail on the head.
Far too many people are thinking like bean counters, and not like business people.
As a photographer, you create value by providing a service that your client is willing to pay for. It has nothing to do with costs; it has everything to do with value.
People have to realize that the "profit" that so many mistakenly treat as something evil, is really a necessary payment to reward entrepreneurship and is just as essential to the successful functioning of a business as any of the other expenses (assistants, insurance, etc.).
The person posting on Craiglist is a complete idiot. I certainly wouldn't want her as a client; I would spend far too much time fending off her attempts to nickel-and-dime my invoice down to something she thought was "fair" or "reasonable". In the meantime, I would end up losing money doing the job thereby lessening my ability to stay in business.
hifiducati: Someone, please add RAW to a waterproof camera.
Absolutely. Fuji missed an opportunity to make this camera really unique.
mrosin: Sheesh, what a snotty review. We get it, you don't like Paul McCartney. But how is that relevant to this book? Based on what you wrote in this review, I don't like you much either but I wouldn't make that the centerpiece of a review of your photography. And for your information, McCartney's 1970 debut album was just reissued this year and got good to great reviews across the music industry, from Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, and other music critics. So why make comments about something you clearly know nothing about.
I'm glad you finally educated yourself about Linda's work. It's a shame you had to stoop to such petty remarks about her husband.
mrosin, I think you're being a little harsh.