PDA

View Full Version : New Camera with RAW Mode



BSea
12-19-2007, 17:08
I'm looking for a moderatly priced point & shoot that has a RAW mode. I want 1 that will work with an Ikelite housing. Any suggestions?

ReefHound
12-19-2007, 17:21
That camera was the Olympus SP-350 but it's no longer in production and very hard to find.

LI Diver
12-19-2007, 17:59
Canon G9

Puffer Fish
12-19-2007, 18:00
Canon G9
I would agree... the fuji is also no longer in production...

CompuDude
12-19-2007, 18:56
Canon G9
I would agree... the fuji is also no longer in production...

Yup...

Scubakraut
01-03-2008, 16:23
Canon G9 is a good bet :smiley20:

dbh
01-03-2008, 16:38
I don't care what the others have said....I would get the canon G9 :smiley36:

Dave

Scubakraut
01-07-2008, 10:30
that is 3 votes for a Canon G9... :smiley20:

teerlkay
01-09-2008, 15:25
Amazon = $148
Canons housing = $150
Ikelite housing = $299

CHDK hack the camera and you can shoot RAW, have a live histogram, a real life battery power indicator (with % or actual volts), "zebra" mode under/over exposure preview and more!

Absolutely, positively the BEST value in the P&S market

CHDK - CHDK Wiki (http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page)

My dos centavos!

Scubakraut
01-09-2008, 16:16
Your Canon G9 (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000V1VG5G?tag=whicolnom-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=B000V1VG5G&adid=0XPQSEE48CNA7D3AQPX5&)

http://rcm-images.amazon.com/images/I/11qeRAgoMaL._SL110_.jpg

thor
01-09-2008, 16:26
Just got the G9 and Ikelite housing. Haven't brought it diving yet, but it is a sweet setup. Love the camera on land. Nice and compact. SLR quality pictures without the bulk, although the Ikelite housing makes it almost SLR size.

Puffer Fish
01-09-2008, 17:13
Amazon = $148
Canons housing = $150
Ikelite housing = $299

CHDK hack the camera and you can shoot RAW, have a live histogram, a real life battery power indicator (with % or actual volts), "zebra" mode under/over exposure preview and more!

Absolutely, positively the BEST value in the P&S market

CHDK - CHDK Wiki (http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page)

My dos centavos!

Interesting. There are several issues with doing this...and it takes someone that does not mind the void warrenty... and it is not the best image quality (and given the 1 gig mem limit, I am not sure what value raw would be), but it is not a bad low cost camera.

As a low cost solution.... I like it actually. It is not in the image quality league with the G9 or Fuji F50, but it would make a reasonable image taker.

CompuDude
01-09-2008, 17:18
Amazon = $148
Canons housing = $150
Ikelite housing = $299

CHDK hack the camera and you can shoot RAW, have a live histogram, a real life battery power indicator (with % or actual volts), "zebra" mode under/over exposure preview and more!

Absolutely, positively the BEST value in the P&S market

CHDK - CHDK Wiki (http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page)

My dos centavos!

That's an impressive project, thanks for the link. If only they would hack my S80 and SD870is, I'd be a happy camper indeed.

teerlkay
01-09-2008, 19:30
Interesting. There are several issues with doing this...and it takes someone that does not mind the void warrenty...
I say you don't void the warranty - it boots off your SD card and simply unlocks the capabilities of the existing processor (DIGIC II/III) - "hack"is probably not a good term to use. Nothing in or on the camera is perm. altered in anyway. Tired of it? Put in a different SD card that you didn't put CHDK on and you have a stock camera



and given the 1 gig mem limit, I am not sure what value raw would be


It adheres to the SDHC standard and in NO way is limited to 1GB.


It is cetainly no G9 but camera and housing cost a lot less than a G9 alone.

OP stated
I'm looking for a moderatly priced point & shoot that has a RAW mode. I want 1 that will work with an Ikelite housing. Any suggestions?"

I say an a570 is pretty moderately priced and ikelite has a housing for it. They can put the money they save towards a stobe...and a focus lite...and arms and trays...and a second strobe...

Puffer Fish
01-10-2008, 16:27
Well the site took a different view on the issue.. but they did leave it open to individual's to take the other side.

As you know, the files have to be converted to be very usable, and conversions loose data. How much, I don't have a clue.

I would suspect, given the JPG file size with that camera, that there is not much to be gained.. if anything at all.

Still it and the camera's above it are great underwater camera's and with a good strobe, will take nice pictures.




Interesting. There are several issues with doing this...and it takes someone that does not mind the void warrenty...
I say you don't void the warranty - it boots off your SD card and simply unlocks the capabilities of the existing processor (DIGIC II/III) - "hack"is probably not a good term to use. Nothing in or on the camera is perm. altered in anyway. Tired of it? Put in a different SD card that you didn't put CHDK on and you have a stock camera



and given the 1 gig mem limit, I am not sure what value raw would be


It adheres to the SDHC standard and in NO way is limited to 1GB.


It is cetainly no G9 but camera and housing cost a lot less than a G9 alone.

OP stated
I'm looking for a moderatly priced point & shoot that has a RAW mode. I want 1 that will work with an Ikelite housing. Any suggestions?"

I say an a570 is pretty moderately priced and ikelite has a housing for it. They can put the money they save towards a stobe...and a focus lite...and arms and trays...and a second strobe...

cummings66
01-10-2008, 18:44
An interesting site, I think I might just do it to my A620 and see what effect it has on pictures. I know with my Xti that raw mode gives me more exposure latitude, plus lots of other goodies. I wonder how the A620 would do?

I'll need to wait until I get my HP laptop back from repair for the second time, this laptop doesn't have what I need to do it. I will try it at that time and report what I can find out.

Puffer Fish
01-10-2008, 20:30
An interesting site, I think I might just do it to my A620 and see what effect it has on pictures. I know with my Xti that raw mode gives me more exposure latitude, plus lots of other goodies. I wonder how the A620 would do?

I'll need to wait until I get my HP laptop back from repair for the second time, this laptop doesn't have what I need to do it. I will try it at that time and report what I can find out.
Keep in mind that the Xti has a really crappy Jpeg, and the A620 has a fairly good one. People keep making the mistake that a jpeg is a jpeg, or worse, that the highend camera's have good jpegs, because everything else about them is "better". Reality is that DSLR's, for the most part, have the worst quality jpegs...as the jpeg on a DSLR is usually not the primary source of images... do the size check, it will be obvious.

Many P&S cameras do not loose anything with their jpegs..

cummings66
01-10-2008, 21:21
I get your point, and it's true that on a DSLR raw mode does turn out a better picture. If you save RAW+JPG and compare the two it's pretty obvious that the jpg is not as good as the processed RAW image. I would describe it as looking somewhat less sharp or blurred, but on it's own it looks OK. It is not however something I would blow up to a 20x30 image where I would do that to a RAW picture, in fact I have printed 20x30's that look better than what my Medium Format camera delivers, and it has a nice prime lens. Now I would say from personal observation that the jpg's the Canon turns out are sharper than those by Nikon (My brothers a Nikon nut where I like Canon) but that the raw mode is pretty much even. I can't say about the other cameras out there as I don't have them nor have I seen them, but dpreview does show you that many of the cameras now are good, and yet have some drawbacks which are usually apparent in the iso's above 400.

Out of my A620 what I'd hope to do is get some additional leeway in the exposure like you can with a DSLR. A proper exposure is best, but under water that's often a challenge and I think if raw mode works that it just might be worth the effort. I'll try it out at any rate when I get my computer back and can access the card.

What I'm curious about is on the A620 is there a difference or not. I've seen other mods for RAW mode that made absolutely no difference, might as well not even saved it in raw mode.

Puffer Fish
01-11-2008, 04:41
I get your point, and it's true that on a DSLR raw mode does turn out a better picture. If you save RAW+JPG and compare the two it's pretty obvious that the jpg is not as good as the processed RAW image. I would describe it as looking somewhat less sharp or blurred, but on it's own it looks OK. It is not however something I would blow up to a 20x30 image where I would do that to a RAW picture, in fact I have printed 20x30's that look better than what my Medium Format camera delivers, and it has a nice prime lens. Now I would say from personal observation that the jpg's the Canon turns out are sharper than those by Nikon (My brothers a Nikon nut where I like Canon) but that the raw mode is pretty much even. I can't say about the other cameras out there as I don't have them nor have I seen them, but dpreview does show you that many of the cameras now are good, and yet have some drawbacks which are usually apparent in the iso's above 400.

Out of my A620 what I'd hope to do is get some additional leeway in the exposure like you can with a DSLR. A proper exposure is best, but under water that's often a challenge and I think if raw mode works that it just might be worth the effort. I'll try it out at any rate when I get my computer back and can access the card.

What I'm curious about is on the A620 is there a difference or not. I've seen other mods for RAW mode that made absolutely no difference, might as well not even saved it in raw mode.

Would be interested in what you find... but if you have a site like DPreview that show the Jpeg size, you can pretty much tell by the resulting Jpeg size how much compression was applied (considering the image size to start with).

My reference to show how that goes is the Fuji S5... which has the largest of all Jpeg of any current camera... they could find absolutely no difference between it and RAW... which a D200 is one of the smallest, and shows a giant difference.

lmorin
01-11-2008, 09:25
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format).
The benefits of RAW files:

Nearly all digital cameras can process the image from the sensor into a JPEG file using settings for white balance, color saturation, contrast, and sharpness that are either selected automatically or entered by the photographer before taking the picture. Cameras that support raw files save these settings in the file, but defer the processing. This results in an extra step for the photographer, so raw is normally only used when additional computer processing is intended. However, raw permits much greater control than JPEG for several reasons:
Finer control is easier for the settings when a mouse and keyboard are available to set them. For example, the white point can be set to any value, not just discrete values like "daylight" or "incandescent".

The settings can be previewed and tweaked to obtain the best quality image or desired effect. (With in-camera processing, the values must be set before the exposure). This is especially pertinent to the white balance setting since color casts can be difficult to correct after the conversion to RGB is done.


Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits typically stored in processed TIFF and JPEG files; since the data are not yet rendered and clipped to a color space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colors.


The working color space can be set to whatever is desired.


Different demosaicing algorithms can be used, not just the one coded into the camera.


The second item above is particularly important for divers who often need to get around the depth-related loss of longer wavelengths in images.

cummings66
01-11-2008, 10:42
And if the raw file is really a raw file then I think it's worth doing the mod.

Puffer Fish
01-11-2008, 13:08
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format).
The benefits of RAW files:

Nearly all digital cameras can process the image from the sensor into a JPEG file using settings for white balance, color saturation, contrast, and sharpness that are either selected automatically or entered by the photographer before taking the picture. Cameras that support raw files save these settings in the file, but defer the processing. This results in an extra step for the photographer, so raw is normally only used when additional computer processing is intended. However, raw permits much greater control than JPEG for several reasons:

Finer control is easier for the settings when a mouse and keyboard are available to set them. For example, the white point can be set to any value, not just discrete values like "daylight" or "incandescent".
The settings can be previewed and tweaked to obtain the best quality image or desired effect. (With in-camera processing, the values must be set before the exposure). This is especially pertinent to the white balance setting since color casts can be difficult to correct after the conversion to RGB is done.
Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits typically stored in processed TIFF and JPEG files; since the data are not yet rendered and clipped to a color space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colors.
The working color space can be set to whatever is desired.
Different demosaicing algorithms can be used, not just the one coded into the camera.
The second item above is particularly important for divers who often need to get around the depth-related loss of longer wavelengths in images.


I guess if it is on the internet, it must be true. Actually most of that is true, particularly with most DSLR's. But almost every item has exceptions...and several are down right meaningless.

Yes, you can set something (assuming you have the software to process the raw that will allow it) to another color space, but for the most part, you would never be able to see it.. it would be some sort of theoritical electronic value.

Yes, 12 or 14 sounds like it would be better, but for the most part that is just taking the existing space and cutting into smaller pieces... pieces that already were smaller than a human can see.

You will get to use a different demoscaicing alg. - but I am betting the number of people that would know what that was doing and the differences are next to zero.

But, the big difference between raw and jpeg is not always there, unless you are talking about most DSLR's. I will again refer to the S5 evaluation on dpreview... where they could find absolutely no difference between the two. Sadly, any camera could be doing that, they choose not to.

What everyone is seeing when they look at most DSLR jpegs, is the data compression of the jpeg... If this is happening, then cummings is right, in that he will see an image improvement.

Fuji actually tries to make a very, very low loss JPEG.. most other companies don't care.

cummings66
01-14-2008, 13:00
While I don't have my laptop back yet, I did configure the usb system on my Linux machine which is what I've been using for a while now to play here, and bought a reader.

I installed the software mod and made it self booting on my card so that I don't need to load it.

The preliminary results indicate it's a useful mod and it is indeed a raw file. The approximate file sizes on my A620 are about 9 megs for the raw and 3 megs for the jpeg, I'll know more when I play with it later on. The windows machine really does have a more easily used raw file utility, or at least it's easier to understand how it works.

So far it's looking like a worthwhile mod and because it's not permanent you don't risk anything. Win win.

lmorin
01-15-2008, 21:17
....
I guess if it is on the internet, it must be true. .....

No offense, but I think you are missing the point. The advantage of RAW files has little to do with any comparison of RAW vs JPG or any other format. Rather, it has to do with the editing flexibility endowed on the image by virtue of the fact that all the original information about the image settings are available to the editor. You cite DPReview in support of your perspective on the issue. I will cite it in support of mine. (http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/RAW_01.htm)
The Flexibility of RAW
In addition, many of the camera settings which were applied to the raw data can be undone when using the RAW processing software. For instance, sharpening, white balance, levels and color adjustments can be undone and recalculated based on the raw data. Also, because RAW has 12 bits of available data, you are able to extract shadow and highlight detail which would have been lost in the 8 bits/channel JPEG or TIFF format.

bversteegh
01-15-2008, 23:39
:smiley29:The thing I have found most useful in RAW is the ability to pull detail out of shadow/highlight areas when you missed the exposure on the original shot. With the 8 bit jpeg, if you expand the dynamic range around a certain level (like in the shadows), you have less bits to work with, and can do less before you start seeing noise in the processed picture. Working in RAW at full bit depth, you have a lot more flexibility on how much local "gain" you can apply to recover detail in an underexposed area before you start introducing noise into your image.

I agree, if you nail your exposure/white balance on the original shot, there is virtually no advantage to RAW, plus it adds extra processing time vs a good JPEG.

But I have salvaged many a picture with a unique subject by shooting RAW (often only having 1 or 2 shots of the subject) - where I missed the exposure by as much as 1.5 stops, but pulled out excellent pictures (assuming focus and composition are good - RAW can't help there