On 27/01/2012 5:47 PM, Tom C wrote:
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.
So if they don't understand it, and are very unlikely to use it, and are
even less likely to miss it, why would you force it on them?
Chauvinism?
The P&S end of the camera market is so price sensitive that people will
choose a camera that is a few dollars less than the one beside it for
that reason alone.
Heck, people will chose one camera over another because they like the
colour of it's outer shell more than the one beside it.
The Pentax Q was being pilloried before it was released because it was
too expensive for it's sensor and the likely image quality that it would
give up. Even after proving itself time and again that it's sensor is
more than adequate, people keep finding something or other else to
dislike about it, but it is always something relating to it's street
price. This is the mentality of the modern consumer.
As soon as they put a raw file option into a camera, they have to write
a raw converter for that camera. That cost alone would push the price up
enough to put it out of the market, and taking off custom processing
features makes it a far less fully featured camera than what the
unwanted raw file function gives back.
There are huge numbers of people out there for whom the cell phone is
the camera of choice. I recall reading on another forum that the most
actively uploaded image category on flickr is the Apple phone users group.
The people who care about raw are in the minority, usually male, and
often a bit geeky. For everyone else, jpeg is fine, and that is most
camera users.
--
William Robb
--
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.
