[probably_wrong]

My theory is that doing so would cannibalize their user base.

I think that those who buy a pro camera nowadays do it because they care about photography itself. For that public post-processing is a touchy subject: besides the philosophical aspect of "is this a true representation of the moment I captured?", there's a real chance that their work will be under-appreciated or rejected altogether if their camera is known as "the one that retouches your photo automatically".

I'm not sure that Nikon's sales would improve that much if they offered auto-post-processing (is that something amateurs a tively want?), but I can imagine that their current customers would be unhappy.

[glial]

I'm not convinced. There is already an 'Auto' and 'P/A/S' setting option on most of these cameras. P/A/S is great for those who want control. I wish Auto was better for those who don't care and just want good photos.

In other words, no camera exists that has great computational photography and a lens bigger than your thumbnail. Why?

[michaelt]

> I'm not sure that Nikon's sales would improve that much if they offered auto-post-processing (is that something amateurs a tively want?)

Ah, but what if instead they could get that $700 0.3kg lens you own to perform as well as that $2000 1kg lens you don't own?