Which P&S compact with RAW format?

[zelph_young]

<p>Having owned and shot with Lumix LX5 and LX7 I really like the f/1.4 aperture of the LX7. Both cameras produce good results and prices are not that high these days, especially for used. Seeing them for under $250 now.<br>

Best part for me is when one zooms to 90mm you are still at f/2.3 wide open. The Sony offering in this class costs more and you are f/4.9 when at maximum zoom - wide open. It makes a difference. The advantage of the Sony is a larger sensor and smaller size.<br>

Really, it is hard to go wrong with most of what is out there now. I have used the LX5 and LX7 both in temperatures to 22 below zero(f) without failure. The battery life on them is much better than on the Fuji X-E1 or X-Pro1 I have and have used.</p>

[Garret]

<p>Thanks, Zelph. Appreciate your contribution to the thread. The LX-series sure does shine in raw comparisons with other cameras. The 2.3 aperture would indeed be a luxury at 90mm...<br>

______________________</p>

<p>Randy's post got me to thinking again (dangerous).... Since raw p&s cameras (and others) are not all created equal, it follows that raw converter software has inconsistencies as well. It seems that researching a new camera specifically for its raw format capability must also include an assessment of raw converter software. For those stumbling upon this thread, it will also be to your benefit to look into this one: <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7MT">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7MT</a> . I learned a LOT from Gianluca Bevacqu. It all takes time....</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

Luke, I have used Photoshop 6, Photoshop Elemnts 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12, Lightroom, Capture One, Onone 8.1 Photopro, Digital Photo Professional (Canon) Olympus raw converter and Photo pro. They all produced good results but as another responder to the linked forum said you will be happier using one that fits your work flow. Unless you make really big enlargements, the small differences of the 100% view won't be seen. I think that using the adjustments of the programs, I could get them to look pretty much alike. As an exercise you might check me out as massage the PSD files to look the same. If you are stuck give me a shout out and I will try it.

[Garret]

<blockquote>

<p>. . . you will be happier using one (software) that fits your work flow. Unless you make really big enlargements, the small differences of the 100% view won't be seen. . . .<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks again, Randy. <br>

<br>

There are more than a few talented souls on this board who can justify new, high-end equipment and the newest software. I'm really not one of those guys. So, I won't be paying $200-$1600 for software. I see no point in over-spending on 'stuff' with an arduous learning curve for little benefit or enjoyment except maybe just to have 'the best'. And, though it's all in the eye of the beholder, I'm sure not there: the software I'm looking for doesn't have to be 'the best'. And, I can't say as I have anything that resembles a work flow yet.<br>

<br />So, perspective needs to rule here. It's just nice, (and interesting), to learn about alternatives and to actually see variations even though I might not be able to capture them myself. The fact that I won't actually 'see' the results produced by a certain software unless the image is reproduced as a huge print did not escape me. Still, I remain impressed by the dichotomy of how sharp raw data appears between one software and another right out of the camera with very little manipulation.</p>

<p>So, part of my modus operandi here is to over-analyze stuff and then walk away from it for a couple weeks. It's interesting how decisions are made and then other features & facts show up to short-circuit the attention span. For example, twice I decided on a camera (Canon S100, and then the Panasonic LX5). And, thrice I changed my mind. So, this game is far from having been played. In the end, I'll likely do what I can afford based on intuitive features. And, so it will be with raw converter software: when the analysis is reduced to common sense, I'll do what's cheap and easy first. <br>

<br>

All that said, it's really awesome when somebody with more experience points to the 'reality of results'. Being obsessed with details and/or perfection can get expensive really fast! And, it's so easy to get lost in specs or the thinnest of performance margins while completely losing sight of the bigger picture. When you're up to your ass in alligators it might still not be too late to have someone point out that the primary objective was to drain the swamp. Thanks for the reality check.</p>

<p> _____________________<br>

<br>

Right now I'm leaning toward RawTherappee and RawPhotoProcessor. Now, I know some of you would say that it was a no-brainer from the git-go. But, <em><strong>I</strong></em> didn't know that then:-) And, to make matters worse I'm starting to revisit some of the recommendations in this thread and look at different cameras again too: the Canon G15, Panasonic Q and Fuji X100! Fortunately, some of these cameras are just too expensive. Nice to drool over though.<br>

<br>

I'll probly' download one or both of these soon and shoot some raw format with my dslr just to get a feel for the process (work flow?). I'll give you a holler when I get going on it. Thanks a lot for your help!</p>