The following is an open letter to Canon regarding their September 17, 2006 press release titled "PowerShot G7: Canon's most complete compact yet." The announcement describes the new category flagship camera as being “designed for photographers” and promising the attributes required by “advanced photographers”.

Dear Canon:

I’ve been a Canon customer for years, so please consider the following comments in their appropriate context -- the reasoned concerns of a long-term customer rather than the mere ravings of an angry one.

Like my friends and colleagues involved in photography, I was excited to hear about the upcoming launch of the Canon G7. As photography enthusiasts, we’ve been waiting for a quality compact capable of producing expert results -- a simple yet serious camera to keep comfortably at hand.

When I began reading the press release for the G7, I thought that, finally, the camera we’ve been waiting for was here. Then I learned that RAW file capture would not be supported. To my mind, this broadsides what might have been the best-yet ‘carry around’ camera.

For the photography enthusiasts I know and myself, the exclusion of RAW capture is a deal-breaker.

Consequently, we’ll have to look to other brands -- in my case, Panasonic and their recently announced Lumix DMC-LX2, despite my concern that it may not be a match for the G7. However, it does supports RAW capture.

As a long-term Canon patron and a decent barometer for the potential G7 customer base, I’m curious to know why the G7 was downgraded from RAW capture when its predecessor, the G6, was RAW capable. Was it an engineering oversight or an ill-informed marketing ploy designed to drive photography enthusiasts like myself up into the digital SLR category? If the later, then Canon misread their customers, forcing a good number of them to not only look elsewhere, but to go elsewhere. Besides, many of us who were eager to buy the G7 already own digital SLRs (in my case, the Canon 5D).

As I’m sure Canon understands, this manner of forced brand-emigration all too often acts as the thin edge of a very broad wedge. Time will tell if the new 'Canon expatriates' created by downgrading the G7 will return to the fold. ‘Isn’t Panasonic coming out with new SLR system anyway?’ You get the idea.

I've taken the time to write in hopes that the these concerns might reach those at Canon responsible for making such critical technical/creative decisions, and to let them know what we, the customers, need and expect from Canon photographic tools in exchange for our brand loyalty. RAW file support is a critical yet basic requirement. Yes, even in a compact. Certainly in a flagship compact.

Ultimately, we want to believe that Canon is serious about photography enthusiasts even if we don’t make our living as photographers. Trashing RAW file support goes a long way toward undermining that belief.

Again, please accept these comments as given -- the real-world concerns of a photography enthusiast who sees his brand-of-choice not only disregarding the basic needs of its customers, but as phasing out of sync with its core brand values.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Hornaday

I don't know what to add, I thoroughly agree! Canon would be on to a winner with a raw enabled G and S series of compacts - afterall, the biggest complaint about the Panasonic is noise - Canon are the undisputed champions of high sensitivities with the least noise.

Irrelevant to this thread, but the undisputed high ISO champion in compact digital is Fuji with its F30.

Regards,
Bernard

Couldn't agree more. I was looking forward to this new model.

The only thing to add is DNG enabled RAW

I agree with this too. All three compacts I previously owned were Canon models, and two of them were S series with RAW capabilities. I currently use a DSLR, but I'm strongly considering getting a compact with RAW as a more casual carry-around. Unless Canon brings RAW back to the S or G series, I will go to the competition.

Count me in, too. My DSLR is a Canon 5D, and my pocket camera is a Canon S60, which does still have RAW, as did its successor, the S70. But the S80, successor to the S70 also abandoned RAW.

When my S60 finally dies, I will have to find a suitable replacement, and it must have RAW. If Canon won't provide RAW. I, too, will (sadly) have to look elsewhere.

Eric

Count me in, too; and I agree that RAW should now read "DNG".

I have a 5D, Rebel XT, and the last 'S' series to support RAW: the S70.


Oh, and the S70 can still be had through Amazon.com, but for around $700 new. It sold for about $440 new prior to the S80.

Says it all really. Going for over £500 [$950] in UK, it was £210 2 months ago.
My Canon S60 is on it's last legs [it gets used [and dropped] all the time] and I got quite excited when I saw the S80 specs as it seemed to improve on the S60/70 in so many ways and then I saw no RAW!!
And the stupidity continues with the G7. Someone theorised recently it may be because Canon didn't want to damage entry level SLR sales. Possibly true, marketing people can be that stupid.
I have 3 Canon pro bodies and choose the S60 as my pocket camera as it was the best of a sorry bunch and had RAW, manual and a wide lens. Canon will be losing my custom as a result of this lack of RAW support.
I would have already bought a Ricoh GRD if the RAW write time wasn't a pathetic 14 secs. Duh! How many people who this camera is aimed at will put up with an unusable RAW feature. Ricoh admit it's an Achille's heel
Leica have anounced a manual pocket camera with RAW. No mention of write speeds.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06091408leicadlux3.asp

I used to use a tiny Olympus XA which produced pics as good quality as my full sized pro 35mm cameras. And better than a 20D does now come to think of it.
So Canon why do I have to lug around several kilogrammes of bulky and very obvious SLR kit around with me, rather than a 300g of camera with RAW? Makes reportage, street work easier and less likely to get you mugged too.

I would pay a £1000 for a GRD or similar camera with full frame sensor, 1600ISO + RAW [DNG]. I prefer £500 though!! Far more useful to me and many others than 30D. And think of the prestige such a camera would give Canon.

Absolutely although knowing how these companies feel about DNG, we might be throwing the baby out with the bath water. IOW, they might consider RAW but would totally ignore the letter based on the request for DNG. But I agree in principle we need both. Good luck.

I've never owned a Canon camera so really have no business posting, but I'd like to propose an alternate theory re the S80/G7 raw deal.

Canon has long been the leader of the pack when it comes to low-noise imaging. I'm sure they take great pride in that; I'm also sure they are keenly aware of the belly-aching and negative publicity a company like Panasonic gets for not having similarly low-noise products in their compact camera line. To the degree that raw output file really represents the raw output from the A/D converter it is going to mercilessly reveal any noise that exists at higher ISOs in a compact camera.

When pixel pitches are down to less than half that of a typical dSLR, much more noise is going to be there at a given ISO in a compact camera's raw file than in a dSLR's raw file. The noise from the 7 mp S70 and G6 was apparently tolerable to Canon. With the increase in pixel count for the S80 and G7 I suspect the raw noise has now become a form of dirty laundry Canon does not care to air in public. So long as owners and reviewers only see the brilliantly executed internal NR from the DIGIC II engine's JPEG output, the dirty laundry remains private.

There is now tentative evidence emerging on the dpreview Panasonic forum that the LX2's raw output may have had a first NR scrubbing pass before being written to file, at least at higher ISOs, by the Venus III engine. Canon could have chosen to take this route too in order to retain the raw output option on the new compacts. Perhaps this would be acceptable to you folk. But if my theory happens to be at least partly correct, I strongly doubt that anything less than an organized consumer revolt would persuade Canon to change its new tack.

[quote=Dale Cotton,Sep 23 2006, 06:37 PM]
...So long as owners and reviewers only see the brilliantly executed internal NR from the DIGIC II engine's JPEG output, the dirty laundry remains private"

Very interersting therory -- or insight, rather.

I can neither use nor recommend a camera without RAW capture.

I just completed the Coast to Coast walk in Britain, fearful all the way of soaking or smashing my 5D, & returned home ready to buy a high-quality P&S for future travel. I headed straight for the G7 announcements, & discovered it can't be of use to me.

Dale may indeed be correct; otherwise it looks like a self-defeating decision.

I agree (with the letter to Canon).

It's not the flagship.. and how much smaller is it then the Rebel?

Raw files from digicams require so much processing I just don't get the desire to have to process them all on your computer.

Do you shoot all your digicam shots on a full size tripod too? If you're not shooting on a tripod you just killed 1/2 the raw advantage. Take the right exposure in JPG and you ought to be able to make yourself happy.

It probably is marketing.. but the class of super expensive feature loaded digicams is probably on it's last legs when DSLRs can be had for the same price or less.

Uh missing the point. I can fit a little camera in my pocket and hence always have it with me. Therefore it gets used a lot and often under tricky lighting. RAW enables one to get the best result from the image captured e.g. correct the often innaccurate auto WB.
Oh and by the way do you think a ickle little camera is going to do a better job of processing than a desktop/laptop with PS?
Have you even used a camera like an S70 in RAW mode? It's sooo much better than JPEG. I thought the tedious RAW/JPEG debate was put to rest a long time ago!
Nonsense. Using RAW is not about absolute sharpness and anyway JPEGs will suffer equally from no tripod.
Besides my S60 shoots at 1/2000, so why would i need a tripod for that. Plus it is so fantastically easy to use at low shutter speeds with its gentle shutter relaeas and no clunky mirror to cause shake in first place.

4x4s/SUVs are quite popular for going to work, but if I prefer to ride a motorbike who cares? Two wheels are faster through the typical urban snarl up too. More discreet too, which is another advantage a non SLR has.

I have an excellent condition G5 for sale. It does RAW capture.

Bud James
North Wales, PA

Canon claims to listen to Photographers demands and then they do silly things such as remove RAW support from a line of cameras geared to serious photogs that has always had raw capture before? It's a patently dumb move.

Times like this along with other instances (direct print button but no MLU), it has to make you wonder if they actually do listen, or if that is just lip service...


Screw their feelings about DNG. It's a blatant disservice to one's customers to lock them into proprietary raw formats (especially considering the history of photography). If they don't hear demand for DNG or any open format for that matter, then they will never bother to consider it.

They are being stubborn, certainly. However this means they need to be pushed more aggressively to open up. They have to hear there is demand for open formats otherwise it will never happen. Strong market demand will always trump any company's resistance to it. Just look at what is happening with the RIAA and digital music for an example.

And herein lays the reason Canon will likely not return to RAW capture for point 'n shoots. Other than a handful of photogeeks, hardly anyone in this target market gives a rat's tail about RAW capture. Now I wish it had RAW capture as well, but there are plenty of other choices for serious pocket cams. The GR-1 comes to mind...

Pretty much what I believe. I had the old G1--learned to shot in RAW and haven't stopped since (shooting with 5D now). But--most of us RAW shooters moved on to DSLRs and I bet most using the G series are not shooting RAW--though it would behoove them to do so.

I had an unfortunate experience this week--forgot an extra CF card in another bag (here in Maine) and ended up shooting with my husband's Fuji F30 for that part of the day---drove me up the wall (two bags--one with extra body and tele lens and chargers--lesson learned--don't switch bags hurriedly). I can't deal with no viewfinder for one thing--and no RAW of course. Taught me that if I would ever buy a small digicam for myself--it would have to have at least the viewfinder--and preferably RAW. Then again--I probably would never use a digicam. A Rebel with a small good zoom might work--would hate to stick on my 24-70L on the Rebel for a 'small' cam LOL (I shoot with primes most of the time, but chose my 24-70 and 70-200 f/4 for traveling plus a 45 TSE--not a light load and I understand others choice of something smaller).

Diane

With the ~13 second delay (according to DPReview) between shots I'd argue that GR-1 might as well not have RAW support.

What is its delay on a HQ JPEG? A RAW is usually only about 3x the size of a HQ JPEG.

According to dpreview it's 2.6 seconds, however in JPEG mode you can shoot continuous mode, which is a critical difference. I'd by one if if it had say a two or three deep buffer, but the no buffer thing is a killer.

The old Sony DSC-F828 had raw support, but took around 13 seconds to write one. It seems like an eternity in practice. But that was 3 years ago with much slower media. Surely they can do better now. A "HQ JPEG" is indeed about 1/3 the time, maybe less, on the DSC-F828.

I agree wholeheartedly with the open letter, which is why late last year I went for the Panasonic LX-1. It is a nicely built camera, with practical features, true wideangel (28mm equivalent) and raw capture. True, it is noisy, but it's size means I can take noisy pictures where before I took none at all, as my heavy and bulky 5D and plethora of lenses stayed at home.

So Canon, I am one of the silent majority that said NO to your compact offerings.

Unfortunately I think that Canon does not read it's mail, nor does it listen much to it's comsumers, critics and other interested parties, but rather to their own Marketing Magicians that are fiddling to no end with products.
In every single camera release all sorts of new features are added.. BUT something is always taken away. In the flagship G7.. this just happend to be RAW capture. The sheer idiocy of this move is unfathomable to us consumers.. but the Marketeers know why..
I just hope the marketeers understand why fewer people buy the G7 that the previous G series cameras before it.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's not forget to mention the MLU button that we've all been waiting for on the DSLR's.. but wait.. doesn't Sony have one? Maybe we're just supporting the wrong brand. Now that other manufacturers have caught up with the image sensor, and there is more competition, Canon may actually be forced to actually listen to us once in a while, instead of spoon-feeding us their marketing gobbledigook.

There's a bit of a wrinkle, at least in the beta I have.

If you select 8-bit (more widely supported) in preferences, the files come in, in sRGB. If you select 16-bit, you get ProPhoto RGB. Messy and needs to be clarified in the preferences. True for RAW and rendered images when you ask to use LR edits.

A bit more flexible I guess, but not clear at all!

I think you posted that in the wrong forum Andrew...

Yup although I have no idea how. Sorry.

I agree completely. After going through the specs of the camera, I was really excited until I read about the lack of RAW support. I don't have a dSLR yet and probably never will, since my Sony R1 provides all the capability I need for my type of shooting (I always shoot RAW). But I wanted to supplement the R1 with a smaller compact and the G7 was the perfect candidate, if came with RAW support....I am now forced to look at other alternatives.

Sigma have an interesting new camera in the works. Bigger sensor too, same as in the d-SLR! Shame about the f4 lens.
And there's Leica!

We NEED RAW in a pocket camera that uses AA batteries. IS would also be nice. When backpacking, caving, skiing, I might not want to lug a DSLR every time. Or the extra proprietary batteries on an extended trip. But I want the full range of a RAW image. And with my x2 3800 Athlon, 6150 chipset motherboard so the graphics is low end, I can browse RAW images in real time with Bibble, ACDSee, Thumbs Plus.

This picture of me was taken in a cave about 3 hours from the entrance. While one can drag in a DSLR in a Pelican box, it is not something that one does for every trip. Especially if one is doing a 12 plus hour trip, even a 24 plus hour trip.

Nigel

Why would Canon not provide RAW support for the G7 if their market research had told them it is a desirable feature which would help sell more cameras?

If Canon have already provided RAW support in some of their earlier models but have withdrawn this feature in their latest model, is it not likely that their market research department has come to a conclusion that RAW mode in such a camera, with its huge disadvantage of a serious time lag between shots, is rarely used and therefore a wasted feature which has, nevertheless, a financial cost paid for by the consumer?

Those who are interested in serious photography tend to use DSLRs. It would be interesting to find out just what percentage of owners of DSLRs shoot RAW. In the Guest House where I'm currently staying in Siem Reap, I've had conversations with 3 other enthusiasts, an Englishman using a Fuji S2 Pro, an American using a 20D and a Malaysian using a Nikon D200. Only the American was shooting in RAW mode (and myself, of course).

If anyone is so concerned about getting the fullest possible control over their images to eke out the maximum DR and sublety of tone etc, why would he/she use a P&S camera in the first place? Surely the P&S camera is, for serious photographers, a carry-anywhere camera for those occasions when carrying a bulky DSLR is not appropriate or too inconvenient. You carry it just in case you come across a really interesting photographic opportunity which might normally ellicit the response, 'I wish I'd brought my camera.' In such circumstances, the disadvantages of lack of continuous shooting and the huge time lag between shots in RAW mode would surely outweigh the small advantage of being able to tweak the WB and possibly reduce noise slightly more effectively than the in-camera processing.

My Sony DSC T30, which I bought recently for a good price in Bangkok, sports a live histogram and manually adjustable EV, contrast and saturation settings. There's no problem in avoiding blown highlights. It also takes 3 bracketed shots within a second or so. Would I like the opportunity to waste time with a RAW image which is going to be decidedly inferior to any image taken with my 5D or 20D, whether RAW or jpeg? I don't think so.

Ray has some interesting thoughts.

It seems from reading earlier posts that many have a large camera, 5D quite often, however use their P&S or similar more.

I am really interested in how those with a P&S and a 5D split their time or priority when to use which one? OK, if you do caving I can see the point.

It is also interesting to note that so many serious photographers seem happy with the quality of P&S cameras that they can leave the high end camera at home.

I have used a G5 for 2 years, like it a lot and do mostly 8*10 prints, b&w. I am too interested in the G7 and like many of you a bit disappointed with the lack of RAW. However in the past 2 years I have shot mostly JPG and been quite happy.

I am too looking at the 5D but am concerned that I may leave it at home in favour of a smaller camera.

Well, no answers, just some more thougts

I have a 5D, a 10D, and an S60 P&S. The 10D now functions simply as a backup to the 5D. I use the 5D when I know I am going out for "serious" photography and when I expect to have time and energy to use it properly (often, but not always, with a tripod.) I try to have the S60 with me most of the rest of the time in case something worth photographing comes up.

For me, the wait between shots is seldom important (I haven't shot sports in about 40 years.) But there are frequently situations when I can get a decent shot with the S60. Much to my surprise, quite a number of the shots from the S60 have been of good enough quality, with careful processing and noise reduction, to include in exhibits (smaller prints than from the 10D, of course.)

Because the S60 is so marginal, it needs all the help it can get to obtain good prints. Thus, I almost always use RAW; and when the S60 eventually quits, I will certainly replace it with another pocketable camera that shoots RAW.

Here are some sample numbers from a six-week trip to Tuscany and Umbria last April and May, before I got the 5D:

Raw images from the 10D: 3201
Raw images from the S60: 1510
Jpgs from the S60: 487
Jpgs from the 10D: 11 (result of accidental setting )

Total images shot: 5209

The percents of these four categories are: 61.5%, 29%, 9%, and much less than 1%. Even without venturing into caves, there were many situations in which it was inconvenient to have the DSLR along.

So yes, I think a good P&S with RAW capability fills a significant need in some serious photographic work, and I hope Canon gets the message.

Eric

I use a D200 for serious photography, but have a Fujifim F30 point-and-click to carry around with me all the time, for the occasions I don't have the D200 with me. The F30 doesn't have RAW, but, if it did, I would always use it. Why? Because the F30 has far more of a tendency to blow out the highlights than any DSLR I've used (or at least to have the rest of the image be *really* dark when the highlights aren't blown), and RAW would give me a larger dynamic range to work with. For me, the longer time between shots isn't much of an issue, since I'm usually shooting things that sit still. I thought long and hard about buying the F30 since it didn't have RAW, and now I wish I'd waited for something else acceptable to come out.

Lisa

Ray,
If I'm traveling, and moving a lot, I've often got a fairly substantial bag with me (both rough clothes and dress clothes, plus extras because I'm sometimes not in one place long enough to get the laundry done.) I've also got to carry a laptop to stay in touch. That's a lot of weight. Since I'm not usually traveling for purely photographic reasons, I would like a camera that gives me the highest possible quality in the smallest, lightest possible package, and preferably one that will fit in a suit coat without too much of a bulge. I've tried several, and currently use a Pentax Optio 750z, which has almost the perfect form factor, but doesn't have RAW, it's major fault. But the G7 seemed likely to be almost perfect...and then it turns out not to have RAW. RAW shouldn't be a big deal; people who use P&S's are not usually doing fast moving photojournalism. But if you're shooting in a museum, or in Monet's garden, you really do want the best possible quality, and the best color, even if you're shooting a pocket camera. Since RAW is basically a programming issue, why not have it? I suspect there is some reason other than marketing research -- like noise issues, or upstream impact on DSLR sales. In any case, I'm in the market for a new P&S, but I'm now a non-G7 buyer.

JC

I have an S50 and a 5D.

Like others I take the S50 when I just want something to shove in my pocket, the 5D for anything "serious".

I frequently use the S50 because it fits in my jersey/jacket pocket if I go out for a motorcycle or bicycle ride.. things that are almost always done during the day with plenty of light.

I've shot RAW with it a handful of times just to try it and it seems a waste. The camera is so poor in "tough conditions" that RAW vs. JPG doesn't make enough of a difference for me to justify RAW. So I don't use it, so I wouldn't hesitate to replace it with a newer camera that didn't have RAW capability.

I basically consider my S200 useless at ISO 200-400. It's a sunlight ISO 50 camera for me, or something to take a fairly awful flash snapshot with. Whether or not I shoot RAW if I have to use it in a tough or artisitic situation where the 5D would have been a better choice it essentially is not usable for color, I'll turn the images black and white and leave them with some level of black and white "grain" from the noise. If I leave it in color and try to remove the noise on the computer it just results in a big mess without usable detail. I really wouldn't print an 8x10 or larger out of the S50 at ISO 200/400 in color.

My brief experiences with the S60, S70, G5, G6 etc.. seemed to bear out that the S60/70/80 are only marginally better then the S50 so I'd shoot them the same way. The only advancement seems to be better in camera noise processing, with essentially no wait. I borrowed a G5 for an afternoon and shot a bunch of pictures with it.. again I'm just not sure I'd care about RAW, even though I found it a far better camera to use then the S50, and the extra size was no trouble at all.

I now have the computer hardware & software to process a RAW file from one of these Point & Shoots essentially instantaneously, but I'm still not sure I'd bother using RAW with them. RAW is all about getting the best result, and quick shots with a point & shoot camera are not about that, they're about quick convenience IMO.

Also I will happily just take my 5D and a 50mm lens with no flash, no acccesories, or something. When you pare an SLR down to that little it doesn't take a whole lot more room then an expensive "advanced" P&S with a zoom lens that isn't all that great anyway. The DSLR is only big and bulky if you can't seem to leave the house without a backpack full of lenses & gear.

Ben,

I keep trying to shove my 5D into my shirt pocket, but it just keeps falling out.

But my S60 fits nicely.

Eric

I didn't mean versus an S50/S60/S70/S80.

I meant a 5D (or more appropriately a 300/350/400D) with a single well chosen lens is not much bigger then the G5/G6, and other "advanced" digicams.

The S50/60/70/80 form factor has a lot of life left in it IMO since it's still really small. It's the G5/G6 line that looks most likely to die out IMO. Canon surely wants to protect the Rebel, as soon as the Rebel starts to crowd the G line I bet Canon will axe them completely.

Hopefully we start to see more APS P&S cameras in the meantime though..

Lisa,
I considered getting a Fuji F30 recently but also noticed in test shots on the web this tendency to produce contrasty images with either blown highlights or dark shadows. I felt that the lack of a contrast adjustment as well as lack of image stabilisation detracted somewhat from the exceptionally low noise of the F30, so I got the Sony T30 instead.

There's no doubt that shooting RAW with a DSLR can have worthwhile advantages, but I wonder if it is correct to assume that shooting RAW with a P&S camera can have similar advantages. Dale Cotton made the valid point that maybe the RAW images from such tiny sensors are so bad the manufacturers are a bit embarrassed to reveal them. Instead, they strive to put as much processing wizardry they can fit in the camera to make the best of a bad job. I certainly wouldn't want to waste time applying the techniques I use with DSLR RAW images if the results are going to be hardly better than the camera's own processing.

With the 5D (and 20D) I can recover a huge amount of highlight detail if there are no strong colors in the highlights, as much as 1.5 stops or more. I'll see if I can find some examples.

While you're writing the open letter make sure to ask for the things that might really get serious photography nuts salivating over a G8.

How about an f/2.0 lens again like the early G cameras? How about an f/1.4 or f/1.8. Give up some zoom range and make the lens really fast. The equivalent of a 35-105mm f/1.4-f/2.8 zoom would make me want one real bad.

Or bump up the sensor size to 2/3 or maybe even 4/3.

Oh and give it an optical viewfinder with some exposure data in it, and don't let the lens block the viewfinder at any focal length.

Canon is a huge company, nearly $73 billion market cap. They make about 3/4s of there sales and profits from office and computer equipment. Only about 25% is from cameras and lenses. Not small taters, but not the driver behind the company.

Canon is currently trying to increase profits by increasing margins. That's more money (profit) for less spent (cost). Canon is a publicly held company and owes share holders return. They don't owe photographers anything except what they sell them at the asking price. An all bells and whistles P&S isn't that big to Canon's bottom line and I don't think (personal opinion) that is the direction the company is headed (decreased margins?). All the camera buyers on L-L won't make much difference to Canon. How many of you are standing in line now for a really fancy P&S at a price that makes business since to Canon?

But good luck. Can't change the direction of the thundering herd if you don't try. You might have more success getting Wal-Mart to stop selling Canon cameras until Canon makes a real fancy P&S. Now ask the folks in Arkansas if that is what they want to do. I doubt that too.

Very very silly marketing from Canon
I am using EOS 1 D II (thinking about 1Ds II at the moment) and first class lenses of L-series, but I was expecting G7 to be my all round pocket camera for all the time carring. But every camera I own MUST HAVE RAW! Not just because of resolution, but for color and exposure correction as well and many other features!
It is a shame Canon pushes us to change the mark and loose potentional compatibility (with external flash for example)!

So this leaves me with two questions (for when my S60 finally dies):

1) Does any current Canon P&S still have raw? And if not,

2) What other small pocketable cameras still have raw and decent optics?

In other words, when I finally have to leave the sinking ship, which way should I swim?

Eric

I'd like to join the list. I own Canon DSLR cameras. I was excited when the G7 came out but I only shoot RAW. I will probably buy an LX2 although the noise isssue is a problem.

I believe the new Leica/Panasonic twin p&s cameras come with RAW.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

It depends on the incremental cost to add RAW to the G7, how much that will add to the retail cost and how many more (or less) cameras Canon might sell with RAW.

With RAW, the retail cost might be too high for many folks, equalling lost sales. RAW isn't as important to some folks as others. While it seems to be a major factor to you, some folks just don't care. Sure, Canon will lose some sales because of no RAW. But how many more will they get for the lower price? Why buy RAW if you don't need it, want it, or even know what it is?

Also remember that Canon, like many othr companies, is very intrested in profit margins - right or wrong. Adding RAW to teh G7 may not be margin friendly.

I could be wrong, but I think Canon might know their business and markets pretty well.

On further thought, I would address your letter to soem one in particualr, not "Canon." A "Dear Canon" letter will get opened by the mail room for redirection, if at all. The mail room may not be able to deliver internally a "Dear Canon" letter. ANyway, I think it is always a good idea to address your mail to a specific person.

Of course the question also arises - would people use the camera if it gives pisspoor RAW performance?

It is one thing providing the firmware which allows you to take images in RAW format, it is another (probably reasonably expensive, and ultimately useless as far as attracting most users to the camera) to ensure that this feature is usable/useful.

However, it may be that once (or if) Canon integrate the (same/similar) DIGIC III into their DSLR's you *might* see firmware (official or otherwise) available which allows you to take RAW images with the G7 - the major question still remains, what sort of performance is required to satisfy those who want RAW with the G7 - and fundamentaly, is it worthwhile for Canon to either increase the cost of the camera, or shoulder that increased cost in order to satisfy a small minority of buyers.

I do think Canon know their business and markets pretty well and I am pretty sure they know about needs of pro and semipro photographers, but they decided fot better profit, not for clients to fulfill their needs. Photographers, who want shot RAW must buy EOS SLR camera! That is silly for me!
Why another companies manage to put together lower price together with RAW support and Canon doesn´t?
Heheh, and if Canon tells that G7 settles new level in compact cameras line, how it could be true without pretty important feature like RAW is (doesn´t matter if some users don´t want it). For such a brave statment I expect to get from the camera all important features and if somebody tells that RAW isn´t then I am finishing here!
And I don´t think there are many people who would be interested in G7 and wouldn´t know what RAW is! For them the G7 is still too big and confusing. I am sorry, but it is not typical point and shot camera. If that was true, why external flash hotshoe? Why Image Stabilisation? Why SLR like features and handling? The camera would be much cheaper without!!!
But who is camera for? Who for were G3, G5 and G6? It isn´t A series powershot neither ixus, why you are surprised that we are??? With no RAW support in G series powershot, the new G7 is step backward.
It is my personal epinion.
Sorry if my english is not as good, is isn´t my home language.
Kind regards!
Julius

PS: I agree it would make much more sense to address the letter to Canon headquarters, not to cry here
But I am not sure about it
I am pretty sure they know all the things we are writing about.

Canon is a publically held company. They owe photographers nothing (except what they have sold them, like their warrenty), but they do owe their share holders a profit.

If they can meet the needs and wants of photographers, and make a profit, fine. But I'm pretty sure profit comes first.