Mark Roberts wrote:
I disagree about getting a better camera if the reason is #2: If using RAW works better than your in-camera processing and is compatible with your workflow, why spend more money on a better camera toachieve the same thing at a greater cost? To impress people? That's Canon-style thinking! <g>
Not exactly. If in-camera processing is good enough to allow you to achieve similar results to those you get from photoshopping a RAW file, then you've just eliminated a step from your workflow. You might even work without a computer at all. By Jove, in the good ole days of film, I was not running it through some home made alchemy before sending it to the lab, so why should I have an extra step now with a digicam.
#3 is just wrong because RAW doesn't "squeeze out thelast bits from your camera for some extremely large prints". It has virtually no effect on resolution of detail or potential print size; It *does* effect lattitude, which has benefits at any print size.
It is squeezing, at least those extra bits as from 8 (jpeg) to 12 bits (sensor) and you also get rid of some compression artifacts. However, if the camera did a good mapping of those 12 bits in 8 in the first place, and used a good sharpening method without ugly artifacts, and would allow you to set the desired jpg compression level in fine steps, etc etc you wouldn't need to do that yourself on the PC.
So yes, there is a place for better firmware, and if this is "Canon thinking" then IMHO Canon is the way to go.
