G7 Raw

[Peter G]

Much more interesting is Richard’s general remark that he
wouldn’t need any extra resolution. Most of us really
don’t and seem to agree that normal use doesn’t benefit
from these 10 megapixels the “G”7 offers, even if they
were of high quality which they aren’t. Cropping possibility
would be beneficial, but as we have seen the real images are not
that detailed to take much of it. The CCD-chip is so noisy at pixel
level that aggressive advanced filtering destroys low contrast
detail even at lowest ISO, making the images look artificial and
over processed. For what the pixels are good for if not bringing
more detail? Wouldn’t it be far better to have fewer higher
quality pixels?

I can imagine how good the image quality would be if
“G”7 was equipped with a new 5 – 6 mega pixel
1/1.8 sensor. It’s a great pity that they have made a bad
trade-off to a certain kind of resolution. Lion’s share of
the potential buyers would have benefited tremendously more from
REAL high ISO capability.

Not quite sure why the ISO was interesting to people. It is 50.

I am not sure why someone wouldn't at least want the OPTION of recovering this detail. To me all the new compacts are dead. It is clear the new 10MP chips is quite noisy. Hard to say if Raw would have been enough to save it. From the Photokina samples, it is clear that it is a pixel packed noise factory with detail destroying NR mixed in.

http://i.pbase.com/o5/04/606404/1/68046096.nafoz6Qj.G7__ISO_Compare.jpg

I have to hope for the success of the Sigma DP1 to spur Canon to build one, or for Fuji to release a decent pocket high end compact. I think fuji as actually rolled back pixel count on the 1/1.6" chip. From 9mp down to 7MP. So we only have one company going against the trend. If fuji wouild build a decent compact with this chip with Raw and standard memory, I would seriously look at it.

 

[Virvatulet]

chip. From 9mp down to 7MP. So we only have one company going
against the trend. If fuji wouild build a decent compact with this
chip with Raw and standard memory, I would seriously look at it.

Yep! It’s a shame because better cameras would benefit all photographers. And Canon, given its sheer mass, could overcome consumers’ misconceptions and thrive without cheap exploitation marketing.

-Virvatulet

 

[Virvatulet]

-Virvatulet

 

[Tetsuro]

I don't think that would be simple to have RAW with that 10 MP sensor. Even dSLR have hard time with RAW, and they got big buffers like 64 MB... look at Fuji with their 9 MP effort. RAW is so slow that is almost unusable.
However I would be more happy with a 7 MP sensor, better pixel density.

P.S.: I think I'm in.
--
Alessandro

 

[thecameraguy]

Apparently, to Canon, the jury is still out and that jury is not
forum talk like this, but the greater buying market.

Exactly! They believe it only when they see it on the bottom line.
Nothing else matters because they think that they have made the
right strategy, decisions and read the market right. Even inside
critique that they could have done better will be silenced if the
“G”7 won’t be a significant flop, since who would
want to admit bad decisions and take the blame.

The “G”7 is a grotesque example of marketing
“analyst” druids dictating product development;
it’s like any other religion, full of beliefs and very little
if any evidence. But they are convincing speakers for their cause.

I have no doubt about that the “G”7 will be a testing
success and shall sell well. Not because it is such an
extraordinary camera, but because what it has behind it, Canon
brand, distribution cannels, marketing, PR, luminaries (persons
with no direct public relationship with Canon but that speak in
favour of their products), the legacy of G-series and the icing on
the cake is that not many of the reviewers are up to the task.

-Virvatulet

This is NOT an example of "marketing analyst druids" and you are unfairly denigrating the marketing function. You would have been more accurate to say that Canon is not listening.

What is happening here is that the strategy is being determined "product out" rather than "market in"... This is typical in a technology company where there is strong engineering leadership in an organisation which is in a dominant market position... The marketing function is demoted to packaging and advertising.... Quality marketing folks are easily able to connect with reviewers, and users and establish a product strategy.. it aint hard... What is hard is getting your company to implement it....

 

[ShutterNot]

Should we hope for a P&S Canon prosumer camera down the road with RAW capability ??

--
ShutterNot



G3, D70s, A610, PRO1

 

[saotupp]

Should we hope for a P&S Canon prosumer camera down the road with
RAW capability ??

If the hell frozes.. There's not going to be a Pro-series camera, there wasn't even suppose to be G-series and as you can see, there wasn't. S-series lost RAW with S80 and you know the story with G. Unless they make a whole new prosumer line, which is very unlikely, I doubt will see anything pro from Canon anytime soon(2008 maybe). Anything other than 1/1.8" 1/2.5" sensor would be a miracle.

--

If a man empties his purse into his head, no one can take it away from him. An investment of knowledge always pays the best interest.

 

[Ben-Ami]

I can save them the effort. I will buy the G7 as is, raw is memory guzling for my use.
B-A

 

[andycgw]

Even dSLR have hard time with RAW, and they got big buffers
like 64 MB... look at Fuji with their 9 MP effort. RAW is so slow
that is almost unusable.

Look at Canon with their 10Mp effort (400D, surely the fairest comparison). RAW is quick, 3fps with a 10 frame buffer, and totally usable. Canon always implemented RAW at least as well as any other manufacturer, and better than most.
Andy

 

[jonrobertp]

I am convinced that there are many shooters who fail to understand that the majority of photo buffs are NOT into raw in a large manner as some of thse posters are. We humans are NOT all alike !!
--
Life is not a dress rehearsal !
See Cuba & NYC at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

 

[thecameraguy]

ditto

 

[Tetsuro]

Probably Canon have better buffers than Olympus one, because mine goes slowly and for less pictures. And it is a dSLR.

For me it's no surprise that a Prosumer camera have some problems recording 10 MP images. The 'thunder' FZ-50 take 4 seconds shot to shot, against 1.6 of JPG. Fuji takes muh more time.

20 MB per photo? Not an ideal world (today).
--
Alessandro

 

[BravoBrown]

Nope, we're not all alike... which is why so many like to take advantage of the increased flexibility of raw. Doesn't mean everyone has to, but it's nice to have the option. If you were using a Panasonic you'd be lost without raw. Of course, by saying majority you're just guessing....... I would hazard a guess that most photo buffs who are interested in high-end prosumers actually do benefit from using RAW at least occasionally.
Best regards!
Mark

I am convinced that there are many shooters who fail to understand
that the majority of photo buffs are NOT into raw in a large manner
as some of thse posters are. We humans are NOT all alike !!
--
Life is not a dress rehearsal !
See Cuba & NYC at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

--

 

[linuxworks]

We humans are NOT all alike !!

are you talking to ET or something?



--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~

 

[trizt]

I have commented this example before, but here I go again. First of all it is a pp:ed RAW against a JPEG out of the camera (right?) That is unfair and I am not the one to try to adjust the colors of the JPEG because I don't have the skill.

I know that this is about texture but the overall impression is very important. If you want to show texture differences then don't alter the colors.

And regarding the texture, I think that it is hard to find someone who don't want to be able to shut NR off for JPEGs. It is sad, but it seems as no one allows you to do that.

So RAW or not? If you can't minimize in camera pp for JPEGs then of course RAW. If you can not get the colors you want from a JPEG but from a RAW then of course RAW (but no one has been able to show that...)

 

[kellert]

RAW is a waste in most instances...that's why canon does not include it with their latest top-tier offering.

I have commented this example before, but here I go again. First of
all it is a pp:ed RAW against a JPEG out of the camera (right?)
That is unfair and I am not the one to try to adjust the colors of
the JPEG because I don't have the skill.

I know that this is about texture but the overall impression is
very important. If you want to show texture differences then don't
alter the colors.

And regarding the texture, I think that it is hard to find someone
who don't want to be able to shut NR off for JPEGs. It is sad, but
it seems as no one allows you to do that.

So RAW or not? If you can't minimize in camera pp for JPEGs then of
course RAW. If you can not get the colors you want from a JPEG but
from a RAW then of course RAW (but no one has been able to show
that...)

 

[andycgw]

RAW is a waste in most instances...that's why canon does not
include it with their latest top-tier offering.

Interesting point of view, do you think they'll be removing it from the EOS 1D series next?
Andy

 

[Peter G]

I didn't adjust the colors, that is what ACR gave me. I wanted to show the difference in texture so I didn't bother trying to equalize them for color. My only point was to show how much the noise reduction will squash detail. I hate that watercolor smoothed out look you get from the NR engine.

If Canon gave more color control and Noise reduction control in camera, then I don't think the loss of Raw would be so bad. Still wouldn't like to lose it though. But given they way you are stuck with the "Canon colors" and the Canon detail smoother, it really is a huge loss.

I have commented this example before, but here I go again. First of
all it is a pp:ed RAW against a JPEG out of the camera (right?)
That is unfair and I am not the one to try to adjust the colors of
the JPEG because I don't have the skill.

I know that this is about texture but the overall impression is
very important. If you want to show texture differences then don't
alter the colors.

And regarding the texture, I think that it is hard to find someone
who don't want to be able to shut NR off for JPEGs. It is sad, but
it seems as no one allows you to do that.

 

[andycgw]

Probably Canon have better buffers than Olympus one, because mine
goes slowly and for less pictures. And it is a dSLR.

It's all about intelligent buffering. Even my 5-year old G2 can handle RAW perfectly happily, although burst depth is very limited (2 or 3 shots only at 2.5 fps).

For me it's no surprise that a Prosumer camera have some problems
recording 10 MP images. The 'thunder' FZ-50 take 4 seconds shot to
shot, against 1.6 of JPG. Fuji takes muh more time.

The key is in allowing the camera to continue shooting while the RAW file is being written. Canon also know how to do this.

20 MB per photo? Not an ideal world (today).

It's rather less than 20Mb. Canon write the data for two 12-bit photosites across three bytes, and use an efficient lossless compression algorithm. RAW files from even the 13Mp EOS 5D are rarely over 15Mb. G7 RAW wouldn't compress so well, due to its billion times more noisy sensor, but file sizes would still be closer to 10Mb than 20Mb.
Andy

 

[BravoBrown]

I'm amazed at your continued crusade against RAW despite the mountains of evidence as to it's usefulness. Maybe you're just the type that likes to try and stir it up a bit? Relax, some folks actually get good use out of it (DR, WB, detail etc) whether you do or not. When they do, it's nothing personal against you...

--