While companies like Panasonic, Ricoh, Fujifilm, and Sony lead the way with new technologies in the compact digital camera market, Canon is playing it safe.

Panasonic has multiple wide angle offerings, including innovative sensors with 16x9 or variable native aspect ratios. They also offer RAW capability in all their advanced compact digital cameras.

Ricoh has the innovative GRD and GX100, which I covered in my last post. The GX100 goes starts at 24mm (35mm equivalent) and has RAW capability.

Fuji has been a pioneer in advancing sensor technologies, avoiding the megapixel race in compact cameras and focusing on dynamic range and color in their DSLR sensors. In the compact camera realm, Fuji has accomplished remarkable low light high ISO ability with their F-series cameras and others which share the same sensor.

Like these others, Sony continues to take risks. The camera that comes to mind first is the DSC-R1, the only camera to date which marries a sensor size usually associated with DSLRs to a non-SLR digital camera. It has a terrific Zeiss lens that starts at 24mm (35mm equivalent) and has a mechanically-linked zoom. It also has RAW capability. While the R1 is by no means compact, I admire Sony for doing *something* innovative for camera lovers who want an all-in-one, silent solution that DSLRs don't offer.

What is Canon doing? They have one wide angle current offering, the Powershot SD800 IS. The SD800 is a nice little camera but lacks good manual controls and RAW capability. It's not meant to be a manual tool for serious photographers. What is Canon offering such photographers? The S series is inactive and hasn't had RAW in recent models. The Pro1 has no sign of a successor as of yet. The G7 lacks the fast zoom, RAW mode, and flip LCD of its predecessors.

Why is Canon doing it? Many have speculated that Canon is dumbing down their compact cameras to force enthusiasts to buy DSLRs. This has the obvious benefit of bringing profits from expensive DSLR lenses, each of which cost more than a good compact camera. Canon representative Chuck Westfall recently gave an explanation for the absence of RAW in Canon's flagship G7. Basically he said that as a result of Canon stuffing so many pixels into a small sensor, the RAW material isn't good enough to yield any better results than DIGIC III is extracting in the in-camera processing. As any RAW shooter knows, he is full of it. Shooting RAW is not just about getting better results, it's about flexibility. When I shoot RAW, I can choose my white balance, sharpening settings, and noise reduction after the shot. I can also process using the enitre dynamic/tonal range that was captured. With the G7, every bit of this has been determined during the shot. If I look at the ISO 400 shot on my computer later and want a B&W conversion where I'd be willing to accept greater noise for greater detail, too bad, the choice has been made.

Why should I give a damn what Canon is doing? The sad fact is that I like Canon images. They know how to make good cameras. I don't want to say bad things about the enthusiast-level offerings from Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic (who also make the Leica compact cameras), but suffice it to say that none are just right for me.

I want to see Canon offer an updated model of the Pro1 with the following:
- Mechanically-coupled 24-70mm (35mm equivalent) f2-2.4 image stabilized zoom lens
- RAW capability
- DIGIC III or better processing
- A new, designed by Canon, 2/3 inch sensor with native 3:2 aspect ratio
- A good electronic viewfinder
- Overall size somewhere between the Pro1 and a Rebel XTi with kit lens attached
- Mechanical controls for aperture, shutter speed, and ISO.

I'd pay $1000 for that camera. Until something like that comes out, I'll probably be using the Leica Digilux 2 as my main camera. Why am I using a 2003 digital camera in 2007? I'll save that for another post, coming soon.