Good Day Folks,
If Canon chose to, just wandering if they could give the G7 RAW image capability with a firmware update....is this possible....or would a hardware change be the only way?
jj

It seems like a software thing to me.

Only question is if that camera has a black and white LCD display on the top or something that displays "L", "M", "S", etc.. and it has no "RAW" icon.

Canon won't do that though. They never do. They eliminated RAW for a reason and unless someone really important complains they're not going to change.

Don't hold your breath for that "Direct Print" button to be changed to MLU either!

Saving RAW could be, but isn't necessarily a software only issue. To achieve good enough performance in a digicam special hardware is needed and it all depends on if the main processor get raw data from the sensor. If it does then raw shouldn't be a problem, but if some special hardware sit between the ADC and the processor then it might not be possible.

Without knowing more about the internals of the G7 it's impossible to know, but it does seem like it would be possible. However I agree that Canon won't do it so the question is a bit moot.

Has anyone to date reverse engineered camera firmware?

Asher

As a pocketable backup to my 1Dmk2, because of the Raw issue I bought an S70 after the S80 came out. Plus why give it 200mm long end and sacrifice the 28mm at the wide end - much more useful.
I'm waiting on M8 availablity for more discrete high quality photography.

Absolutely. The Canon 300D/ Digital Rebel firmware was hacked to add back much of the functionality of the 10D that was "crippled" in the lower-end 300D.

In that case however, the features existed in the firmware code, but were disabled. If Canon included a "save to RAW" function in the G7 firmware, then some enterprising hacker could reverse-engineer the firmware and unlock it, but the question would be whether or not the performance would be so bad that most people wouldn't bother using it. Still, it would be nice to at least have the option to use a slow RAW mode vs being forced to use JPEG.

Doesn't the main processor have to get the raw data to produce the jpg?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Absolutely. You don't get JPEGs right off the sensor, you get RAW data, and then the camera processes a JPEG out of it and then throws the RAW away. Saving the RAW data instead would be a fairly minimal programming exercise, well within the realm of a possible hacked firmware feature if Canon doesn't pull a clue out of its backside.

You guys kill me! I started serious digital shooting with a 3 MP Nikon 990. This was before raw, and I still have a few 16x20 shots from that time that I sell.

Compared to the 990, the G7 is sent from Heaven and I am looking forward to producing some good stuff with mine. Learn some chops instead of complaining so much.

If you really want something useful, beg for a sensor that has a toe and shoulder on the curve, rather that a straight line - that would be REALLY useful.

Michael

You are my new hero.

Hear, hear!

You´ve got a point there; the 990 was my first digital as well. No doubt the G7 would beat the pants off it in terms of resolution and ergonomy.

The thing is, my Canon G3 already beat the pants off it years ago, and so would the G5 or G6 have done. And they DID have both raw and the articulated viewfinder (heck, even the 990 had a primitive variety of that). For me, that viewfinder is an even worse omission than the absence of raw.

WHY did Canon take such obvious steps back from an uniquely good design? I might well buy a G5 or G6 at a surplus sale (my son uses my G3 now). I wouldn´t even look at a G7, since I know Canon can do so much better. Boo, Canon, boo!

Apparently it is possible to hack some Nikon Coolpix cameras to enable raw mode:

http://e2500.narod.ru/raw_format_e.htm

For the Canon PowerShot A610 an enhanced firmware can be found here:

http://digicanon.narod.ru/

So all we need is a determined G7 hacker...

Terrible noise... some ISO 1600 pics:

http://www.highiso.net/canon/canon-powershot-g7.html

Well, that is quite a mess! There is nothing there that you can actually compare, different sizes, different subjects, poor photography, etc. Some of them are way underexposed which increases the noise quite a lot.