# Reasons for slow support for new cameras in raw converters?



## Allan Olesen (Mar 27, 2013)

I have been baffled by this for some time now, and I wonder if someone has some "behind the scenes" insight.

When for example a new Windows version is released, there are already plenty of third party software supporting it. Not just because of backward compatibility in the new Windows version, but also because the third party software developers have worked closely with Microsoft prior to the new Windows release so they could prepare their software for the new Windows version. This is a win-win situation: Microsoft gets more native third party software for their new Windows version, and the third party developers gets support for more Windows versions. This helps both parties selling more software.

One should expect the same symbiotic relationship between camera manufacturers and developers of raw conversion software. The camera manufacturer will have a competitive advantage over other camera manufacturers if their cameras are supported by third party raw converters right from release. And the developers of those raw converters will have a competitive advantage by supporting a new camera as fast as possible.

But for some reason, this does not happen. Instead a new camera is released, and some months later the third party raw converters get support for that camera.

One possible reason for this could be that the camera manufacturers consider the third party developers as competitors. That might make some sense for camera manufacturers like Nikon and Phase One who actually sells raw converters. But as far as I know Canon, Sony, Pentax etc. give away their software for free with a new camera and should just be happy that their customers have more software choice.

Another possible reason could be that the cameras are not finished early enough to give the developers a head start. This also sounds strange. I know from miscellaneous Sony forums that their cameras has usually been out in the wild at selected test photographers even before they were announced. Of course there will probably be some last minute changes to a new camera model, but it seems strange if those changes should affect the raw file format or the sensor's color response.

So, any insight on this? Or some wild speculations on top of my own wild speculations?


----------



## Tony Jay (Mar 27, 2013)

The third party software manufacturers are certainly not to blame.
They reverse engineer as fast as they can.
Most camera manufacturers appear not to release any information until after the camera model is officially released.
Some appear not to release any official information forcing the third party software manufacturers to truly reverse engineer from scratch.
This issue is one of the strongest, but by no means unique, arguements for the adoption of DNG as a standardized RAW format.
(Interestingly, since the appearance of the TIFF and DNG standards at least the reverse engineering is somewhat simpler since most major camera manufacturers cleaned up their own RAW formats considerably.)

The only way to change things is for us, the customers, to lean on the camera manufacturers to change their approach.
It will take sustained pressure over some time though I fear.

Tony Jay


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Mar 27, 2013)

You've summarized the situation pretty well there, and yes, it's quite ridiculous.

The camera manufacturers could solve that one.  Adobe offered DNG as a generic standard, but it doesn't HAVE to be DNG, if they could all just agree on some industry standard.  If they did that, photographers would at least be able to start working with their files, even before Adobe had finished all the extra profiling.  Some cameras already record raw files as DNG so they're supported immediately.


----------

