I disagree. Bufferoverflow frames raw formats as something that's really only there for R&D purposes, and it's more or less just an afterthought that it's available to photographers. In reality, Narretz points out, getting access to the raw sensor data is a key feature to many photographers; it's an essential aspect of the product from a user perspective.

Since you disagree: where in this thread did anyone state the opposite of what you just wrote, who said that RAW is NOT a key feature to many photographers?

Here:

> It is supposed to be raw data from the sensor with some additional metrics streamed in, just sufficiently standardized to be used in the camera-vendors' toolchain for development. It just "happens" to be also available to select for the end-user after product-launch.

Nothing here states that a RAW format is NOT a key feature to many photographers. This is a straw-man argument.

It says that it "just happens" to be available to customers and the main reason it exists is for R&D. That's what I disagree with.

The whole post shapes the context, even the whole sentence helps already: It just "happens" to be also available to select for the end-user after product-launch. Supporting DNG would mean adding an extra feature and then hiding the RAW-option again.

--> Even if DNG-support would be adopted as a feature for the end-user, the proprietary RAW would still need to be maintained because it has a core-purpose during development of the product. The utilization AFTER that is the product-feature

None of this negates the value of RAW for photographers, this is completely beside the topic

That's not how I interpret it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hence I, the person who wrote it (!), keeps clarifying the intended interpretation by (re)iterating that noone disputes the value of RAW for photographers.

It is up to you now to ingest new information and adjust your interpretation, a process I'm afraid I can't help any further with.

Good luck ¯\_(ツ)_/¯