Why no Raw only cameras

It's just something i've been wondering for a while.Why do none of the camera manufacturers make a Raw only camera.No gadgets no frills just a box with an excellent sensor Af etc in other words a very good very fast raw shooter.Concentrate on the quality and not gimmicks?
Iain

too expensive----most if not all the cost reductions we've seen in camera gear this decade are from economies of scale, both at the manufacturing levels and at the sales and dist. levels. so, tiny market=expensive. cameras are unbelievable cheap cost-wise today, compared to what they were years/decades ago, especially considering their capabilities. hard to convince people to spend more to get a lot less.

but i think the future --- around 10yrs or so, maybe slightly more---may yet yield what we seek. at least one camera company9probably more) is already experimenting with robotic micro-manufacturing, and if you couple that with modularity, which one company has already brought to market, and another is rumored to be considering, you could get something that might be affordable that would only appeal to a tiny market sector, like a raw only, stripped-down camera.

That's sideways thinking. I'm not a camera maker but the sales feasibility may be difficult to justify.

• Although there are very loud voices on these forums who urge you to shoot RAW only, I don't know the statistics of all photographers, regardless of whether they are forum nerds - how many just shoot RAW, how many shoot JPEG.

• RAW AFAIK needs to have an embedded JPEG, in some cameras, full size, fine quality for the LCD view. So by necessity, the maker needs to engineers a JPEG engine anyway.

• RAW is not the end product. RAW is supposed to the metafile (or metadata) and a recipe of instructions to render it. How do you provide a recipe of instructions to render it if you don't actually render it or attempt to render it (virtual rendering). Meaning again, the JPEG engineering has to be in camera firmware. What about early experience buyers? They buy a new camera and the camera does not produce JPEGs. And Adobe has not got their RAW convertor ready yet. So what has the customer bought? A RAW shooter that cannot be viewed. If you are away from base and you want JPEGs to give out, what have you got?

• The secret recipe of the JPEG engine is why I am happy with the brand/model I have. So there is a distinction or advantage in engineering a secret recipe JPEG engine. All the other stuff, Art Filters, electronic tricks like in-camera HDR, Dynamic Range enhancements, Pano this and that, once the maker has paid for them, they are pretty much licensed / made for any model they want to use - it's software engineering and it doesn't cost that much to the maker.

ardvorlich said:

It's just something i've been wondering for a while.Why do none of the camera manufacturers make a Raw only camera.No gadgets no frills just a box with an excellent sensor Af etc in other words a very good very fast raw shooter.Concentrate on the quality and not gimmicks?
Iain

Click to expand...

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com

'There are a whole range of greys and colours - from
the photographer who shoots everything in iA / green
AUTO to the one who shoots Manual Everything. There
is no right or wrong - there are just instances of
individuality and individual choice.'

ardvorlich said:

It's just something i've been wondering for a while.Why do none of the camera manufacturers make a Raw only camera. No gadgets no frills just a box with an excellent sensor Af etc in other words a very good very fast raw shooter.Concentrate on the quality and not gimmicks?

Click to expand...

Do you want the ability to see a standard or RGB histogram? White balance controls? Do you want to review the shots taken? Do you want your Raws to be embedded with a JPG preview (thumbnail)? If any of these is the case, the camera needs to have an internal Raw converter and in the latter case, a JPG encoder also.

While I guess it would be in principle possible for a Raw only camera to display a Raw histogram this would need to be re-calculated every time, plus this is not something we are used to interpreting.

Frills and gadgets are the only reason these cameras are even affordable for enthusiasts - it's a question of how much/ extra/ are you prepared to pay for not having them; and are there enough others like you to make it commercially viable anyway.

I can understand people taking an uncompromising attitude and wanting to work in a "pure" way - but why not extend this into a disciplined approach to using the camera? Don't people trust themselves to resist using these auto everything options, except when they are forcibly absent?

My (superficial) advice would be: buy a low-end non Live View dSLR, that generates lots of complaints about functions being buried in menus instead of presented as buttons. Tape it onto either Av or M, and set it to Raw. Then simply don't go into the menu ;-)

OR: playing devil's advocate, maybe the most purist device right now is arguably the cheapest possible, totally basic P&S where the only fiddling you can exercise is (at most) a half-press of the shutter. The digital equivalent of a disposable film camera.

RP

Richard thanks your'e first paragraph answered what I wanted to know.I am quite new to all this and didn't fully understand the corelation between jpeg engine and camera function.Now I do I understand why it should be there.It was only that you read so many people on here talking about "you have to shoot raw to realise the full potential"that made me ask
Iain

Pros working in the field and on deadlines usually use jpegs. If you are shooting a football game, spot news, or an event where you are generating a ton of images, raw will simply bury you and blow your deadline.

The transfer times to the laptop, additional processing steps to maximize raw images, and the additional processing power needed to work with raw files make it a nightmare for image intensive events.

Then add in the headaches of the huge raw file sizes and that raw files are not standardized. I recently had to buy (well, I wanted it anyway) the upgrade from CS2 to CS5 just so I can use my 5DII raw files. Yeah, I know there are converters for DNG and other programs--which add even MORE processing headaches.

Then there is storage and backup. If you are a pro, you generate thousands of images a year. A single 5DII raw+jpeg is almost 40 megs! Frankly, most of my work does not need raw. I reserve its' use for tricky lighting, magazine clients and personal art. Raw is great--in its place.

In 2002 Sigma announced the SD9 DSLR with a foveon sensor and no internal jpeg converter - strictly raw format. At the time the lack of internal jpeg was about as controversial as the sensor.

Regardless of the raw fanaticism preached on this site, you've got to keep in mind that the folks here represent a very small percentage of the camera buying public, including serious shooters. Raw only cameras would likely not sell well enough to warrant their production.

For me, I find internal jpeg conversion a necessity in my shooting and I wouldn't buy a camera without it.

Rick

ardvorlich said:

It's just something i've been wondering for a while.Why do none of the camera manufacturers make a Raw only camera.No gadgets no frills just a box with an excellent sensor Af etc in other words a very good very fast raw shooter.Concentrate on the quality and not gimmicks?
Iain

Click to expand...

All cameras deal with the RAW data right off the sensor. It is then run through the camera's built in image processing and jpeg conversion. Having the RAW option only would not fit the target market very well. Due to the size of the RAW file, the camera may need a larger buffer or it would become very slow after shooting a series of photos. This would offset the cost of not having the jpeg algorithms on board.

Still, I had the crazy idea of a "manual digital" camera. It would be like the old style SLRs, say a Nikon FM2 or such. Not even an LCD screen! You would set the shutter, aperture and ISO with the conventional rings and knobs. It would have metered manual and manual focus. This would eliminate chimping and make the person think before shooting an image. It certainly would not be the camera for the fast shooter, but it can deliver high quality images.

ardvorlich said:

It's just something i've been wondering for a while.Why do none of the camera manufacturers make a Raw only camera.No gadgets no frills just a box with an excellent sensor Af etc in other words a very good very fast raw shooter.Concentrate on the quality and not gimmicks?

Click to expand...

That doesn't really change the hardware. At most you're saving the ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) that converts the working bitmap into a JPEG. Considering the ubiquity of this function, the ASIC is probably smaller than the sensor of an old camera phone, and likely costs a few cents. In fact, I highly doubt the JPEG conversion circuit is a separate chip, and represents no cost saving in disabling JPEG conversions.

You have to remember one thing...”JPEG” is not an image format. Even though we use it as such all the time, there’s no such thing as a JPEG image. “JPEG” refers to a storage compression scheme for RGB bitmapped images. So in fact, an image isn’t a “JPEG” until it’s residing on a storage device. When you view a JPEG-stored image, the JPEG-compressed data is decoded and an RGB bitmapped image is created. That’s what you’re viewing.

Your camera must demosaic an image and must apply a minimum amount of processing to just to provide a neutral reference of what was captured. The end result is an RGB bitmapped image in memory. That image is used for histograms and other functions. Creating the JPEG or TIFF on flash storage is simply a minor final step.

Camera makers can't depend on everyone having a computer. All cameras can print directly to printers. All you need is a camera and a Canon Selphy portable printer, and you're a walking photo lab.

Along with many retouching features, my Nikon D90 lets me crop my 3:2 images to 4:5, and I can select the size and location of the cropped area. So on my camera I can take an image, adjust color, sharpness, contrast, correct distortion, straighten, crop, and print without a computer. This is very useful for anyone who wants to set up a photo-booth type function at a party or wedding. Take a pic, print a few copies, and the group walks away happy with prints in their hands.

It's not all about art, you know.

.

If there was a demand for this type of camera, someone would build one.

In fact they could take any existing camera, and just strip out the jpeg engine, saving them money, and probably charging you a little more for your "raw only camera."

But then you would lose a lot of camera features (like previews, histograms, etc.) and virtually no one would want this camera.

Most cameras beyond the basic P&S cameras will allow you to shoot jpegs, raw or raw + jpegs, so there really is no need to have a raw only camera. And there wouldn't be any advantage to having raw only either. It's not like the camera would cost you less, or have some additional functionality over a raw+jpeg camera would.

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1

ardvorlich said:

Why do none of the camera manufacturers make a Raw only camera.

Click to expand...

Simple answer - there is not enough demand for a camera like this. Otherwise it would be out there.

ardvorlich said:

It's just something i've been wondering for a while.Why do none of the camera manufacturers make a Raw only camera.

Click to expand...

It would be the same processor but with the JPEG engine disabled. Probably in the firmware, so no physical difference. Designing a whole new processor or altering existing designs would make them more expensive. Economies of scale matter.

ardvorlich said:

No gadgets no frills just a box [...]

Click to expand...

Ah, you don't want Av, Tv, exposure compensation, live view, autofocus, ttl type flashes and all the rest of it. Just great lenses and a fully manual camera?

ardvorlich said:

with an excellent sensor Af etc in other words a very good very fast raw shooter.Concentrate on the quality and not gimmicks?

Click to expand...

No, I was wrong. You want the features that are attractive to you personally, but don't want the features that attract many, many other people.

My initial impression was that you were just another snob with no idea how powerful economies of scale are, but then realised that a fully manual body, perhaps with autofocus but no other luxuries like metering, a screen etc, would be a wonderful toy. Most buyers would likely still buy a 'proper' dslr but they'd also have fun playing with the 'magic box' that you could take photos with then whip out the SD card and view the resulting mess on the PC.

Raw would be the preferred format as it gives you plenty of leeway to fix things when you get back. Jpegs would be used (or claimed to be used) by the snobs as a demonstration that their pictures needed little or no post processing on the computer to correct for bad exposures.

An interesting idea!

richardplondon said:

Do you want the ability to see a standard or RGB histogram? White balance controls? Do you want to review the shots taken? Do you want your Raws to be embedded with a JPG preview (thumbnail)? If any of these is the case, the camera needs to have an internal Raw converter and in the latter case, a JPG encoder also.

Click to expand...

None of these functions needs a JPEG encoder. Histograms and other functions use an RGB bitmapped image. JPEG has nothing to do with it.

JPEG refers to an image compression scheme for storage. The image itself is an RGB bitmapped image. An image isn't a JPEG until it is put away on a storage device (including stored within a RAW file.)

.

Because there's no interesting amount of savings by skipping the production of JPEGs. The chips are already built for other cameras and it's actually cheaper to use those chips than to make other custom chips that can only process RAW files.

Now, if you talked about ADDING new RAW functionality like building in true RAW histograms (UniWB) and using that for metering and implementing some form of ETTR metering (but protecting non-specular highlights), that would be something worth while. No advantage to taking things out.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio

ardvorlich said:

It's just something i've been wondering for a while.Why do none of the camera manufacturers make a Raw only camera.No gadgets no frills just a box with an excellent sensor Af etc in other words a very good very fast raw shooter.Concentrate on the quality and not gimmicks?
Iain

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Calls and complaints to their consumer service lines would skyrocket. This would be a really bad marketing move; too many people wouldn't know what to do with a raw file - "Why can't my cousin in CA open the picture file I sent?" "Why can't the local lab print my raw file?" "Why can't I print this to my printer at home?" and so on. As much as most here use raw, it isn't for everybody. Why is it such a bad thing that jpg is available as an option? You can still shoot raw only if you choose.

Mark

ardvorlich said:

It's just something i've been wondering for a while.Why do none of the camera manufacturers make a Raw only camera.No gadgets no frills just a box with an excellent sensor Af etc in other words a very good very fast raw shooter.Concentrate on the quality and not gimmicks?
Iain

Click to expand...

Making a "RAW only camera" doesn't save you any money, it doesn't magically make the image quality better, it doesn't make the camera any faster, it doesn't make the camera any less expensive. The only thing it serves to do is limit your options as the camera user, and limit the camera's appeal in the marketplace. The irony is that making a camera "RAW only" is what would really be the "gimmick" because it would be such a pointless and arbitrary decision that only serves to trick ill-informed people into believing that a "RAW only camera" would somehow make the camera better, faster, or of higher quality!

Graystar said:

richardplondon said:

Do you want the ability to see a standard or RGB histogram? White balance controls? Do you want to review the shots taken? Do you want your Raws to be embedded with a JPG preview (thumbnail)? If any of these is the case, the camera needs to have an internal Raw converter and in the latter case, a JPG encoder also.

Click to expand...

None of these functions needs a JPEG encoder. Histograms and other functions use an RGB bitmapped image. JPEG has nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

A JPG encoded thumbnail preview needs a JPG encoder. Otherwise it can't be JPG

But the other functions mentioned don't strictly need it - and I thought I had carefully acknowledged that.

But the camera will need a Raw converter, if it is ever to make an internal RGB bitmap out of the Raw data; and that means some kind of White Balance and tonecurve need to be involved. Now these could be RAW-standardised (UniWB) and so, often, be quite different to the histogram of the eventual conversion - or else, the camera needs to maintain some kind of user or Auto settings and we are almost full circle back to our current cameras.

Another approach may be to treat the camera as a "blind" capture device and use a separate portable item (iPad?) to check focus and histograms and review the images. But this is IMO simply to spread the same functional components across different hardware; the system as a whole may work a little differently, but is no siimpler.

RP

I don't get these no frills stuff. It's just software, turn it on or off, doesn't compromise a thing, doesn't cost a thing, what's to dislike? So you have something buried in the menu that can turn RAW/JPEG on or off, set it once and forget it if you're a purist.

A RAW only camera would perform just like a RAW/JPEG camera, but wouldn't sell as well, wouldn't support as many needs, and hence would cost more for the same performance.

Even the most die hard RAW user might need JPEG, and vice versa.

By the way, all RAW images worth anything have a full size JPEG image inside them, that's how you preview them and zoom in to get focus. So, you need a JPEG engine out of necessity, no camera decodes the RAW image on the fly. The histogram and other stuff is extracted from the JPEG inside the RAW. Truly get rid of all traces of JPEG and you might as well get rid of the LCD screen on the back . . .

richardplondon said:

A JPG encoded thumbnail preview needs a JPG encoder. Otherwise it can't be JPG

Click to expand...

It's my understanding of the file formats that having a JPEG thumbnail is a choice, not a requirement. A bitmapped image can be used instead, but it would use more space.

.

Of course, an image preview can be saved in any format that the cameras, and ideally also the OS support and image browsers and converters, support. If in JPG you need a JPG encoder; if not, not. But most of what we normally think of as "the JPG engine" (meaning, fast internal Raw conversion to bitmap aside from the subsequent JPG encoding itself), would still be needed regardless.

Or else we forget the review and histogram altogether, and transfer the pictures into the computer blind, and save up that film-like "see how they've come out" edge of the seat thrill, for when we are later sitting at the Raw converter ;-)

RP