----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: RAW file size variation? (Dumb Question #3485438345)
On 14 Nov 2004 at 21:36, John Francis wrote:
It's the same as the complaints about lack of the aperture coupler;
some folks just expect everybody else to subsidise their preferences.
I don't think so, the software development cost argument is a tenuous one. If I
had the choice to forsake one function for faster/smaller RAW files I'm sure I
could live without in-camera multiple exposures. How much cost do you think
went into developing that baby, I would guess there is a whole lot more code
and cost in there (especially considering is the first ever (and probably last)
implementation in a DSLR). And I'm betting a whole lot more people shoot RAW
than use the multiple exposure function on a regular basis?
Pentax has a history of putting wonky little "features" onto their cameras.
Really, how many LX users do you think have used the flag that covers the corner of the frame?
How many LX users have actually rewound their film from frame 24 back to frame 3 because they wanted to put something else into that shot?
Someone on the board of directors probably likes doing multiple exposures with his film camera, and it got sent to the engineers to be made to happen.
Smaller RAW files would be nice, but it is more likely that they spent more time and money, rather than less, making PEF files twice as large as they need to be, and that development was independant of multiple exposures in the feature set.
William Robb
