G7 Raw

[trizt]

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.

As I said, there are benefits iin using raw under certain circumstances (e.g. when you can't turn poor pp off and that seems to be the case far to often). I just want to make clear that the lost textures are not caused by jpeg (they are lost in poor in camera pp).

Regarding the colors, I don't say that you can get the same result by pp:ing the jpeg. I would really like to know and my first step is trying to buy an S70 to start playing (no success so far and I just missed one...) However, I still think that your point (textures) would be better demonstrated if they were pp:ed by experts to try to achieve the same result.

 

[kellert]

maybe.

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

 

[kellert]

"mountains"...

you're hilarious.

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...

--

 

[kellert]

you're never going to get good examples from these hacks.

As I said, there are benefits iin using raw under certain
circumstances (e.g. when you can't turn poor pp off and that seems
to be the case far to often). I just want to make clear that the
lost textures are not caused by jpeg (they are lost in poor in
camera pp).

Regarding the colors, I don't say that you can get the same result
by pp:ing the jpeg. I would really like to know and my first step
is trying to buy an S70 to start playing (no success so far and I
just missed one...) However, I still think that your point
(textures) would be better demonstrated if they were pp:ed by
experts to try to achieve the same result.

 

[4-8-4-Northern]

It's also true that the earth is flat.

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

 

[linuxworks]

maybe.

"I find your argument most informative and compelling; and I'l like to subscribe to your newsletter"

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?

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

 

[jonrobertp]

Peter, car buffs have a similiar problem, in that car companies make new vehicles that do everything for you,(ie . jpgs in cameras) including a lot of stuff you didn't want to pay for. Loaded =more profits, and they still sell to the masses.

--On the other hand , there are prob. not enough buyers who want a basic but good essentials car/camera to warrant the manufacture of such. I'd love to get a new Camry/Accord with the excellent drivetrain, but leave out the expensive periferals which boost the price by $5K. Can't get it. I know the comparison is limited, but I'm trying to understand the issues.

Life is not a dress rehearsal !
See Cuba & NYC at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

 

[Peter G]

Peter, car buffs have a similiar problem, in that car companies
make new vehicles that do everything for you,(ie . jpgs in cameras)
including a lot of stuff you didn't want to pay for. Loaded =more
profits, and they still sell to the masses.
--On the other hand , there are prob. not enough buyers who want a
basic but good essentials car/camera to warrant the manufacture of
such. I'd love to get a new Camry/Accord with the excellent
drivetrain, but leave out the expensive periferals which boost the
price by $5K. Can't get it. I know the comparison is limited, but
I'm trying to understand the issues.

In keeping with car analogies, maybe most of us who like Raw also like to shift our own gears and jpg users don't get the point.

 

[Jon L]

No Raw???; Canon just lost a future customer; I own the Pro 1 and in time will look to update; Canon won't be on that list. JonL

 

[linuxworks]

the thing is, canon is already charging as much for the cam as it would if it had raw in it. this price point should INCLUDE raw, that's what people are up in arms about.

if it had a list price of, say, $300, then there would be much less bellyaching about it. but it tries to be a g-series and falls feature-short of what people expect of a G.

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