With camera sales falling to cell phones, offer RAW to more cameras?

With camera sales dropping as cell phones take over, why don't the manufacturers offer RAW on more of their point and shoot and bridge cameras?

Some of these P&S and bridge cameras can cost north of $500 - why not offer RAW as an option instead of just JPEG format. Think about it for a minute - RAW would allow people to have a choice and may lead the casual user to further explore the world of photography and post-processing. Why should RAW be held out for only those that choose to buy a DSLR or MILC camera? RAW doesn't have to be available on the lowest lines of a manufacturers cameras but I never understood why it wasn't available on ALL mid-range and up P&S and bridge cameras.

I remember getting some great shots at an airshow, with my Sony bridge camera back in 2007. However, some of my best shots were over-exposed and post-processing it as a JPEG is very limiting in getting the results I know I could achieve, had it been shot in RAW format. This could be an area that could help to drive sales up on these lines of cameras. Not everyone wants an interchangeable lens camera! Why should they be penalized just because they chose not to buy into a system that usually requires expensive lens upgrades.

Tell me what you think!

robtec88 said:

With camera sales dropping as cell phones take over, why don't the manufacturers offer RAW on more of their point and shoot and bridge cameras?

Click to expand...

These days most do. My Panasonic LX100, my drone, my GoPro knock off, even my Samsung S7 shoot RAW.

robtec88 said:

I remember getting some great shots at an airshow, with my Sony bridge camera back in 2007. However, some of my best shots were over-exposed and post-processing it as a JPEG is very limiting in getting the results I know I could achieve,

Click to expand...

RAW allows you to best use dynamic range and correct white balance in post. It is not a substitute for learning how to use your camera to achieve the results you want.

how many compact camera users do you think could be bothered using RAW ?

( I don't mean people here , I mean the general public)

FrancoD said:

how many compact camera users do you think could be bothered using RAW ?

( I don't mean people here , I mean the general public)

Click to expand...

None would be my opinion. That opinion based on teaching numerous DSLR users who were shooting JPEG. Shooting RAW means post processing. Most casual shooters want a finished product out of the camera.

Yep -- I don't think many users want raw. Even I don't much care -- can't remember ever using raw on my "compact." Even when I use it for real jobs.

Given the quality of the JPEGs on today's cameras I rarely feel any real need for raw -- sometimes in extreme lighting conditions, or when I screw up the exposure, but not as a general rule anymore.

Gato

Gato Amarillo said:

Yep -- I don't think many users want raw. Even I don't much care -- can't remember ever using raw on my "compact." Even when I use it for real jobs.

Given the quality of the JPEGs on today's cameras I rarely feel any real need for raw -- sometimes in extreme lighting conditions, or when I screw up the exposure, but not as a general rule anymore.

Gato

Click to expand...

Reminds me of how Train Spotters think that EVERYBODY is really,really interested in trains.

FrancoD said:

Gato Amarillo said:

Yep -- I don't think many users want raw. Even I don't much care -- can't remember ever using raw on my "compact." Even when I use it for real jobs.

Given the quality of the JPEGs on today's cameras I rarely feel any real need for raw -- sometimes in extreme lighting conditions, or when I screw up the exposure, but not as a general rule anymore.

Gato

Click to expand...

Reminds me of how Train Spotters think that EVERYBODY is really,really interested in trains.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying 'EVERYBODY'should or would be interested in RAW, I'm saying it should be an inclusion in mid-range to upper end P&S and bridge cameras. It's just a software inclusion - not like the manufacturers have to add hardware. I'm sure the cost would be minimal and may get some people interested in advancing their photographic skills further. Which may lead those people into the DSLR/MILC market...

Most people probably won't use it but then again, if they don't have it available to them on their camera, how do you know? Once some of them know about it, they just may take a shot at trying expand their creativity in photography.

robtec88 said:

I'm not saying 'EVERYBODY'should or would be interested in RAW, I'm saying it should be an inclusion in mid-range to upper end P&S and bridge cameras.

Click to expand...

I think Canon G-series compact cameras include RAW.

As for some long-zoom bridge cameras, perhaps camera companies don't want people to see what the image looks like (bad) without software lens correction.

robtec88 said:

FrancoD said:

Gato Amarillo said:

Yep -- I don't think many users want raw. Even I don't much care -- can't remember ever using raw on my "compact." Even when I use it for real jobs.

Given the quality of the JPEGs on today's cameras I rarely feel any real need for raw -- sometimes in extreme lighting conditions, or when I screw up the exposure, but not as a general rule anymore.

Gato

Click to expand...

Reminds me of how Train Spotters think that EVERYBODY is really,really interested in trains.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying 'EVERYBODY'should or would be interested in RAW, I'm saying it should be an inclusion in mid-range to upper end P&S and bridge cameras. It's just a software inclusion - not like the manufacturers have to add hardware.

Click to expand...

see, that's not entirely true. You're dealing with a lot more data when you deal with RAW. So, you're writing more data to the storage device. That's something that has to be taken into account. If your current architecture doesn't support the movement of more data then you have to make hardware changes.

robtec88 said:

I'm sure the cost would be minimal

Click to expand...

see above

robtec88 said:

and may get some people interested in advancing their photographic skills further. Which may lead those people into the DSLR/MILC market...

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. The truth is, there are so many options on cameras today, most people aren't delving into every feature offered. The people that are post processing their digicam images and aren't satisfied with what they can do with jpeg are highlylikely already ILC shooters.

John_A_G said:

see, that's not entirely true. You're dealing with a lot more data when you deal with RAW. So, you're writing more data to the storage device. That's something that has to be taken into account. If your current architecture doesn't support the movement of more data then you have to make hardware changes.

Click to expand...

This. Saving all that data on lesser cameras will be slow. Some users would enable RAW just because they heard about it, but would then complain that the camera is really slow.

justmeMN said:

As for some long-zoom bridge cameras, perhaps camera companies don't want people to see what the image looks like (bad) without software lens correction.

Click to expand...

I think that's the primary reason.

mdmarqphoto said:

justmeMN said:

As for some long-zoom bridge cameras, perhaps camera companies don't want people to see what the image looks like (bad) without software lens correction.

Click to expand...

I think that's the primary reason.

Click to expand...

That's likely true, but I'm an exception: I wouldn't use the Canon SX50 HS super-zoom if it wasn't RAW-capable. I just don't like the jpeg engine in that camera at all. Yet a little work in PP from RAW and the images shine.

For me, I shoot both RAW & Jpeg. It really depends if it's for fun or serious work. On my smartphone, I shoot mostly jpeg even though it has RAW capability...quick edit and share.

digitallollygag said:

mdmarqphoto said:

justmeMN said:

As for some long-zoom bridge cameras, perhaps camera companies don't want people to see what the image looks like (bad) without software lens correction.

Click to expand...

I think that's the primary reason.

Click to expand...

That's likely true, but I'm an exception: I wouldn't use the Canon SX50 HS super-zoom if it wasn't RAW-capable. I just don't like the jpeg engine in that camera at all. Yet a little work in PP from RAW and the images shine.

Click to expand...

Not too much of an exception, I'd probably shoot RAW with it also