Would you be willing to pay for a better RAW processor from Canon?

[arg245]

If this has been asked before, please forgive me, but all the recent threads on DPP have got me thinking how many of us would be willing to pay for Canon to come up with their own counterpart to Nikon's Capture NX. So, would you pay?

[cdifoto]

No. They already get enough from me via lenses and bodies. They should just bundle a better processor, ie improve what they already have.

[ssim]

I would pay for a quality product not DPP rebundled. I've invested a small fortune in Canon gear and while it would be nice if they gave us something better for nothing I don't expect it.

Canon is a hardware company in their photographic division. I really think that they provide a RAW converter knowing full well that within a couple of months after the release of a new camera that the major vendors in this area, Adobe, Capture One, Bibble, will have an update to their software for the support of the new camera.

If Canon were to come out with something similar to Nikon's Capture NX I would be more than willing to shell out a few dollars for it. It all depends on the price point and functionality of it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'll pay anyone for a really good RAW tool.

But I like that Canon provides a very good one for free... and we can decide if we want to spend bucks on a third party.

I think Canon is FAR better off doing it that way, as if they did have a "better" converter that you had to pay extra for, this would simply breed discontent in the many that would expect the tool for Canon's camera to be free. Poeple blast Nikon for charging for there better RAW tools all the time.

If Canon really wants a "better" RAW converter that we pay for, I would prefer them to work closely with one of the existing companes like Capture one, etc.

[Tee Why]

Seeing as the camera shoots in RAW, Canon should supply a program to develop the RAW image. I personally find it insulting that after spending over a grand for a Nikon, you have to pay anther $150 or so for a RAW processor.

[tim]

The only piece of software that came with my camera that I use is the stitching program, and Canon don't make that. I'd not pay for a better one from Canon when other software companies can do such good ones.

[condyk]

Seeing as the camera shoots in RAW, Canon should supply a program to develop the RAW image. I personally find it insulting that after spending over a grand for a Nikon, you have to pay anther $150 or so for a RAW processor.

Why do you have to? Your choice isn't it? Surely most RAW applications will read the file anyway, just like they will the Canon RAW files.

[kevin_c]

Seeing as the camera shoots in RAW, Canon should supply a program to develop the RAW image. I personally find it insulting that after spending over a grand for a Nikon, you have to pay anther $150 or so for a RAW processor.

They do supply a program with the camera (DPP). However, the OP is asking if you would be happy to pay them if they gave it more funcionallity, like the Nikon software you can purchase if you want to. - That's how I read it anyway...

[ssim]

I'm not sure if Nikon supplies a basic RAW converter, anyone know for sure? I don't see anything wrong with them supplying a basic one and then having a more advanced (which Capture NX does fall under) one for an additional amount. You get what you pay for.

[cdifoto]

Nikon doesn't supply a RAW converter at all.

[ssim]

Nikon doesn't supply a RAW converter at all.
Well that really stinks. So if you are a RAW shooter and you are contemplating a new camera you really have to build this into the price somewhat, whether it be theirs or a 3rd party raw converter.

[sWampy]

I just wish canon would provide a utility to automatically convert to an open source raw standard where any raw converter you owned would work with new bodies without having to wait for others to reverse engineer the new raw format. All the duplication of effort is a complete waste.

[cdifoto]

Well that really stinks. So if you are a RAW shooter and you are contemplating a new camera you really have to build this into the price somewhat, whether it be theirs or a 3rd party raw converter.

Yeah it kinda proves the D50 to not be such a bargain after all. $500 for a D50 for example plus $150 for software, or $625 for a Canon XT with software.

[PacAce]

I just wish canon would provide a utility to automatically convert to an open source raw standard where any raw converter you owned would work with new bodies without having to wait for others to reverse engineer the new raw format. All the duplication of effort is a complete waste.

Why would they want to do that? They already give you a DPP utility for free that you can use for converting raw images.

[Tdragone]

Yeah it kinda proves the D50 to not be such a bargain after all. $500 for a D50 for example plus $150 for software, or $625 for a Canon XT with software.

Am I missing something?
Pixmantec's RawShooterEssentials supports the Nikon D series cameras; so you don't have to pay 150 for a raw converter..
http://www.pixmantec.com/pdf/rawshooter_essentials/System_Requirements_Camera_RAW_Support.pdf

[kevin_c]

Am I missing something?
Pixmantec's RawShooterEssentials supports the Nikon D series cameras; so you don't have to pay 150 for a raw converter..
http://www.pixmantec.com/pdf/rawshooter_essentials/System_Requirements_Camera_RAW_Support.pdf

But for how long... Nobody (except Adobe?) knows how much longer they will make this available or support it.

I know what you mean though... There are other 'cheaper' alternatives - Mind you none of this is answering the original question :-) :-)

[sWampy]

Why would they want to do that? They already give you a DPP utility for free that you can use for converting raw images.

#1 reason would be to save a ton on support. You write a simple program that converts raw to any open format, you can then for get about having to offer support except to the very few people that write software that reads that open format, and the only time you have to help them, is if there is some bug in your software where you aren't creating a valid file.

Canon isn't a software compay, they don't even sell dpp, nobody buys canon cameras because they come with dpp bundled. A ton of people would buy canon cameras because they either wrote to an open file format or made it super easy to convert to a open format.

[DocFrankenstein]

I'd switch to pentax if that was the case.

[Tee Why]

With Nikon, you get a 30Day trial version of Nikon Capture NX. After that you have to pay $100 to keep using it. This is the only program that Nikon offers to manipulate RAW images. They have another program that converts RAW to JPEG, but no features to manipulate the RAW image (which begs the question why shoot in RAW in the first place).

With dslr's, manipulating RAW images is an integral process to image making. To me, when I shoot RAW, this is my workflow. intention, previsualize, select equipement, compose, shoot, review shot and reshoot if necessary, manipuate RAW image, convert to TIFF/JPEG, manipulate TIFF/JPEG image if needed, and then upload and/or print if desired.
If a camera is made to shoot RAW, then they should provide the program to work with that RAW image. Hence I expect the RAW manipulation program to be included with the camera and don't expect to pay for it. Fine if it's that expensive, include it in the price. If I want a better program to do the converting, then I'll pay for it, just like I do with camera straps and other accessories, but a RAW converter is not an accessory in my view.

For now with RawShooter Essentials there is a free third party program to convert/manipulate the RAW images, but thanks to Adobe, that's gone now.

[Longwatcher]

I answered NO because I most likely wouldn't unless it was better then Photoshop CS2, which runs me about $150 for an upgrade.

I like DPP as a basic program and I definitely appreciate that is free with the camera, but it doesn't do everything I want and if I had to pay it would either have to be very low cost or do a whole lot more then it does now.

But for how much I paid for the camera I expect the software to be thrown in for free.

Lastly, almost all of the Nikon users I know of use PS CS2 or anything but the Nikon program. That should tell you something right there.

[Hawg Hanner]

It may not be as intuitive as other RAW converters, but it does a better job converting RAW images from a Canon camera than any other RAW converter already...and that's what counts.

[jj1987]

If they bought Bibble I would, otherwise Ill stick with Bibble.