Why Won't...

[john_markanich]

<p>The Olympus STYLUS TOUGH TG-2 iHS has just been announced. A very nice upgrade to the TOUGH series BUT why won't Olympus, or any other camera manufacturer for that matter, create a "TOUGH" camera that outputs a RAW file? That is exactly what the advanced enthusiast, like myself, wants. If I'm going to go through the trouble of skiing, snorkeling, skydiving or otherwise hanging out of the side of rocketsled WHY would I only want the output of the lowly JPEG?<br>

(yeah, yeah, I know we have the Canon and Nikon DSLR cinder blocks but I'm not a pro, just an advanced enthusiast).</p>

 

[Greg M]

<p>The Tough series is impressive. I had never seen one until I played with one at the local store when the Olympus reps visited with the newest models about 3 weeks ago. It even offers accessory lenses to extend the optical range you can change, while under water!</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Why do you want to shoot RAW? I never do these days.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I would never risk my life for a lowly JPEG either. </p>

[joshroot]

<p>You know, that's not a bad idea. I'm normally a JPEG shooter. But in the instances when I'm using a "tough" camera, I typically don't have a lot of time to make sure that exposure/WB/etc is spot on. I might actually like to have a RAW file out of a "tough" camera.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Why do you want to shoot RAW? I never do these days."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Primarily for <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16765618-lg.jpg"><strong>highlight recovery</strong></a>. Skies that appear white and lacking in detail can reveal plenty of detail in editing raw files. With JPEGs there's nothing to recover.</p>

<p>As much as I enjoy cameras that provide great JPEGs, it's handy to have raw to fall back on for alternative editing choices later.</p>

[Greg M]

With these small cameras and tiny sensors, even as good as they are today, the raw files are not nearly as flexible.

Compared to the raw files from my E-M5, raw files from my girlfriend's Sony RX100 are not nearly as malable. If you blow

the skies much at all the data available to recover runs out more quickly. Shadow detail can still be pulled out fairly well

and look decent, but highlights are pretty tricky. Exposing for the highlights is much more important.

[jcuknz]

<p>If you get the exposure right in the first place you don't need to recover with RAW :-)</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>If you get the exposure right in the first place you don't need to recover with RAW :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course. But the point for me is that so much of the time when I'm using these cameras I am fishing or rafting or snowboarding or whathaveyou and there just isn't the time to make 100% sure that exposure is right. </p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>These little sensor P&S cameras don't give all that much in the way of highlight recovery. What RAW provide is the ability to correct white balance which is fully cooked into a JPG.</p>

[phule]

After using CHDK on a couple of Canon point and shoots for the RAW images, I would agree with those that have pointed out the lack of headroom. It just isn't there like you get with a larger sensor camera. WB changes are nice, but ultimately I went back to JPG and used the other cool features CHDK offered.

[john_markanich]

<p>OK, we just answered our own question. What the industry needs is a larger-sensor "TOUGH" camera in order to make a RAW file useful. The camera would be a little bit bigger but I think the IQ and headroom afforded by the RAW file would be worth it. Who knew; Da vinci may have wanted to snorkel. Your thoughts. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Is it the sensor size per se that limits tonal range, or is it the JPEG in camera processing that causes the variance in pixel range mentioned here re P and S cameras from Canon and I guess from smaller model Olympuses? I ask without any judgmental experience with RAW in point and shoot models, I had a Nikon Coolpix but gave it to my dau in law..seemed to worked well enough in JPEG mode for my unserious stuff,<br /> Q: What about<em> four thirds vs APC</em> or FF vis a vis highlights and the 'blowing out'of same ? The camera inputs or starts with the RAW files and then does its, as you say, pre cooked work on them in conversion.. (which suits me so far for what I need, but still open to persuasion).. Certainly in camera JPEG processing ( is it called the engine?) has influence on the<em> color</em> of the image, with some brand profile variances that are observable. But now you got me wondering.....<br /> Q:What about the shadow to highlight pixel range that comes out in the JPEG based on size of sensor? And why is this so (I need to get Bob Atkins to go over it again maybe :-).).?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"If you get the exposure right in the first place you don't need to recover with RAW :-)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's one of the oldest myths in photography, film and digital. This is measurably and demonstrably a fact, which can be and has been verified by methodical testing.</p>

<p>Does the smiley face after your comment indicate you're being ironic and don't actually believe that? If so, well done.</p>