Originally posted by Rondec I understand that most SLR purchasers don't post process much, but I would venture to guess that the majority of prosumer and up users do some post processing. If you are a lower end user...
Stop right there.
The "lower-end user" is also buying the K-50 and even the occasional K-5 dependent on personal resources (money). I see it all the time where soccer Moms show up with some pretty high-end hardware.
You're creating a false market distinction by automatically assuming that a K-5 purchaser is also proficient at desktop PP. Far from it. That's like assuming an SUV purchaser is proficient at off-road driving. Yet who was driving [sic] SUV sales? Off-road drivers? Nope. People who bought groceries.
Assuming that the prosumer market is driven by post-processing demands and capabilities is a fundamental mis-read of the overall market.
Originally posted by IchabodCrane I'm just not getting that connection between a film darkroom and a PC. One is complicated, space consuming, single purpose, potentially quite expensive, and most definitely messy. The other is a little box that sits on a desk and is used for a myriad of tasks besides post-processing. Additionally, every Apple computer sold comes with basic image post-processing and cataloging software (iPhoto) for free.
I have software tested for both iPhoto (many years ago) and especially Aperture (currently).
To be blunt, most people just organize even with serious high-end cameras. This is known because there are built-in feedback systems for the software products to aid the development cycle. I was blown away to find out that a strong majority of DSLR users never touch a RAW file. As the price range of the DSLR goes up, of course we'll see more PP adherents, but something like 80% of all DSLRs sold are under $1,000 and the # of JPEG-only users was very high.
For most people they use their PC in what is referred to as "shoebox mode"; that is as an organizer. There is very little editing. That's why latest developments are for things like location grabs and face detection, to help the shoebox. And both Adobe and Apple are striving to automate these processes because they know most users will not fuss over WB,tones, curves, etc. It's tedious and dissuasive.
And this is true to history where people were never part of the development process. They took a photo and, if an SLR user, fussed over exposure mostly (not really necessary with a P&S). Then they got prints back. Suddenly saying those people are going edit RAW is silly. There is no market background to do so, little education in how to do it properly, and a serious time curve to do it right. RAW is and always has been a professional attribute, not a core system to sell to the mass market. In fact, trying to sell people on post-shooting "workflow" is a surefire way to dissuade sales. That is NOT what made DSLR sales take off.
Therefore most DSLR buyers are not photo editors and use those facilities rarely. If you design and manufacture DSLR's you have to factor this in to your customer matrix as the dominant expectation of your consumer. You see this is in the way our DSLR's are set-up with more in-camera editing features and JPEG as the default.
Most posters here are wildly over-assuming that most shooters spend major time behind the computer editing RAW files and will also purchase PC systems capable of handling that task. Simply not true. And I predict in the future the rise of dominant mobile OS's will curtail desktop editing even further. Pentax designs systems first to cater to JPEG, SOOC shooters because they are and always have been the dominant part of the market.