Quote:
Surely with memory getting cheaper and cheaper its silly not to include raw mode. Why would a company cease implementing the feature? To promote the sales of the SLR cameras? Or am I being cynical?

Here's a conjecture without any actual knowledge of what's going on. Moving around 8-bit samples is much cheaper than moving around 12-bit samples, so if you do the whitepoint conversion, ISO conversion, and so forth on the sensor chip, then you need less bandwidth to the rest of the camera. If that's how your sensor chip works, then you can't necessarily even get to the raw data.

Of course, the larger sensors, used in D-SLRs, clearly must support raw modes, since the market demands it. We've already got the Sony R1 using an APS-C-sized sensor (same 1.5x crop as most D-SLRs). Presumably, this sort of sensor will find its way into more not-quite-pocket-size cameras (along the lines of the Canon G-series).

My prediction, then, is that insane cost pressure will push raw modes out of the tiny P&S cameras, while larger non-removable lens cameras will eventually adopt D-SLR parts. At least in theory, there's costs to be saved by eliminating the mirror and simplifying the shutter, plus you can pick up a video mode.

What I really wonder is whether there's room in the new world order for something like a Leica M or Contax G-style interchangeable lens digital rangefinder. The only one on the market today is the Epson R-D1, which is overpriced and underpowered, to say the least...


A second conjecture, which may be closer to reality, is that somebody did user studies and found out that "advanced" modes like "raw" tended to confuse customers who were then unable to see their pictures. If all you offer is JPEG, then you eliminate the possibility of a customer complaining that $STORE couldn't make a print of their picture and they want their money back.