> On Jan 27, 2012, at 8:16 AM, William Robb wrote: > >> On 26/01/2012 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote: >>> I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the >>> option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a >>> camera that doesn't have that ability. So is that functionality being >>> withheld to differentiate a higher end camera from a lower end model >>> and therefore command a higher price? >>> >>> Obviously casual users don't need it, or want to understand it, but >>> surely the RAW data (aside from any small degree of massaging) is >>> there for the saving at some point in time. >>> >> >> If the target market for the camera (casual user) doesn't need it, >> understand it or want it, there is no point in putting it onto the camera. >> It doesn't have as much to do with differentiating high end cameras from low >> end cameras as it has to do with differentiating high end users >> from low end users. > >> William Robb
My question was somewhat of a rhetorical 'why' and musing. It would not COST ALOT for the feature. GUI-wise it would only need several additional menu items. A camera manufacturer does not HAVE to teach customers how to use a feature (when have they ever?) Most users would ignore it if they didn't understand it as they do many other features. It would be far more valuable than the plethora of custom image modes and color tinting that's provided. It could only increase potential sales, not vice-versa. I won't buy a camera for my wife or son that does not have a RAW mode whether they understand it or not. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
