Canon Updates DPP, Adds Support for the EOS Rebel 300D and EOS D30

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
8,900
1,666
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
Canon has updated Digital Photo Professional to version 4.8.30 and has added support for such cameras as the EOS Rebel 300D and EOS D30.</p>
<p><strong>Changes for Digital Photo Professional 4.8.30:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Newly supported EOS D2000 *, EOS D6000 *, EOS D30, EOS D60, EOS 10D, EOS Kiss Digital / EOS Digital REBEL / EOS 300D Digital.</li>
<li>Can now handle CR2 files converted with the CR2 Converter</li>
<li>Added Partial adjustments functions.</li>
</ul>
<p>You can download the updated version <a href="https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/details/cameras/dslr/eos-1d-x-mark-ii?subtab=downloads-firmware#Z7_MQH8HIC0L88RB0AMD0F1Q42K25">here</a>.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,650
2,183
Re: Canon Updated DPP, Adds Support for the Rebel 300D and EOS D30

t-shirt-keep-calm-and-lets-do-the-time-warp-again-1_grande_09901566-27f6-437c-b5bc-e80d8cce0bb2_700x700.png
 

mb66energy

EOS R
Dec 18, 2011
1,485
359
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
ethanz said:
Yeah it seems a little late for that?

I do not think - it's for those who started early with digital and do not want to switch between versions of DPP.

Maybe a journalist who bought the D30 or 10D as first "fast filmless" camera for photos which had to delivered really fast. Maybe users profit from refined raw2whatever algorithms which increase the final image quality.
 

Chaitanya

EOS R
Jun 27, 2013
1,372
515
35
Pune
ethanz said:
Yeah it seems a little late for that?
For those who started with 300D or D30 and might want to edit their photos today for whatever reason that update could be a life saver.
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,149
763
I do have a D30 (a fun camera to use, believe it or not) and the files work perfectly with Adobe Camera Raw, so this wasn't needed unless one is really adamant about DPP.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,245
403
mb66energy said:
ethanz said:
Yeah it seems a little late for that?

I do not think - it's for those who started early with digital and do not want to switch between versions of DPP.

If older versions of DPP supported those cameras, why did Canon dropped support later on?

If DPP never supported those cameras, then better late than never.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,676
586
S Florida
I think I'll let this one pass. I recently had issues with my main PC (turned out to be a bad stick of RAM) and did a clean install of the latest Windows 10. While enjoying the experience of reloading all of my software, I installed DPP v4.8.20 and found that DPP and the Lens Registration Tool as well as EOS Utility would not recognize my 5DmklV, 6D or M5 cameras. I dumped that one and went back to v4.7 and have no issues. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,829
1,121
I do not have these old cameras but I believe it was about time fr Canon to update DPP so as to have a single Software editor for all Canon Digital SLRs.
 

dak723

EOS R
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
padam said:
I do have a D30 (a fun camera to use, believe it or not) and the files work perfectly with Adobe Camera Raw, so this wasn't needed unless one is really adamant about DPP.

I have 9 years worth of photos taken with my 300D, so this is quite welcome. While I do have Adobe Camera Raw, I find the colors are so off, that I only use it as a last resort.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,601
1,564
When DPP4 came out, Canon stated that their plan was to eventually support all Canon DSLR's. I have had to keep both DPP3 as well as DPP4 installed so I can process my older images from my D30 and 300D.

I'm glad to be able to use just one version now.

Of course, I generally use lightroom which works for all of my past cameras, including even my Kodak DSLR from 1995 which used a long discontinued version of tiff for raw images.
 

mb66energy

EOS R
Dec 18, 2011
1,485
359
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
Antono Refa said:
mb66energy said:
ethanz said:
Yeah it seems a little late for that?

I do not think - it's for those who started early with digital and do not want to switch between versions of DPP.
If older versions of DPP supported those cameras, why did Canon dropped support later on?

Maybe Canon found that it is to complicated to keep routines for all camera types in one big software: To complex, to much computing resources during runtime. In ~2003 when the 300D came out designing complex software wasn't that easy and the windows operating systems were not what they are today.

Who wanted to use different cameras had to use different DPP versions which was supported by the installation routines of DPP.

Antono Refa said:
If DPP never supported those cameras, then better late than never.

Just the Powershot G2 had DPP ( I think Version 1.x ) but was not supported with higher DPP versions so all raw enabled cameras were supported with DPP.

I think Canon found an easy way to integrate specific RAW decoding routines into the current DPP version without interfering with other parts of the program.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,245
403
mb66energy said:
Antono Refa said:
mb66energy said:
ethanz said:
Yeah it seems a little late for that?

I do not think - it's for those who started early with digital and do not want to switch between versions of DPP.
If older versions of DPP supported those cameras, why did Canon dropped support later on?

Maybe Canon found that it is to complicated to keep routines for all camera types in one big software: To complex, to much computing resources during runtime. In ~2003 when the 300D came out designing complex software wasn't that easy and the windows operating systems were not what they are today.

Modular design & shared libraries is hardly a new concept. MS Windows had DLLs in day one, back in the eighties, I trust Mac OS & Linux had shared libraries long before 2003 as well.

So DPP could have had modular support for varying cameras with zero virtual memory & run time complexity at that time. As disk size passed 10GB at the time, that wasn't much of a problem either.
 

LDS

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 14, 2012
1,712
247
Antono Refa said:
If older versions of DPP supported those cameras, why did Canon dropped support later on?

AFAIK it happened when they introduced DPP 4 and the 64 bit version. Probably the older code wasn't fully compatible with the new one and had to be upgraded and tested. Of course, it was a lower priority tasks than adding new cameras. Good they are keeping on adding older cameras formats compatibility - that's what professional expect from a reliable supplier.

Especially since macOS is going to desupport 32 bit applications, and older version of DPP may have issues with Windows 10 as well.
 

Act444

EOS R
May 4, 2011
1,126
198
Jaysheldon said:
I'd be interested in knowing more about the added partial adjustments feature

I've messed around with it - I'll be honest, I was initially excited about it because this was something I've desired for a LONG time in DPP - the ability to apply RAW adjustments to simply a part of an image instead of the entire image. However, while it does allow you to adjust a portion of an image, the adjustments are limited to only brightness/contrast/saturation (NOT exposure, it seems). It's no replacement for Lightroom's flexibility unfortunately...

That said, I'll give Canon credit for at least trying - at least they've laid the groundwork here, and that's good to see.

ETA: Also, moire adjustment can be applied to a selected part of an image. Looks like you can store up to 5 selections per image
 

vjlex

EOS R5
Oct 15, 2011
405
310
Osaka, Japan
This is welcome news to me! I started on the Digital Rebel and then the Rebel XTi and have 1000s of pictures that I still tweak from time to time. It will be nice to finally have one DPP to rule them all!
 

mb66energy

EOS R
Dec 18, 2011
1,485
359
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
Antono Refa said:
mb66energy said:
Antono Refa said:
mb66energy said:
ethanz said:
Yeah it seems a little late for that?

I do not think - it's for those who started early with digital and do not want to switch between versions of DPP.
If older versions of DPP supported those cameras, why did Canon dropped support later on?

Maybe Canon found that it is to complicated to keep routines for all camera types in one big software: To complex, to much computing resources during runtime. In ~2003 when the 300D came out designing complex software wasn't that easy and the windows operating systems were not what they are today.

Modular design & shared libraries is hardly a new concept. MS Windows had DLLs in day one, back in the eighties, I trust Mac OS & Linux had shared libraries long before 2003 as well.

So DPP could have had modular support for varying cameras with zero virtual memory & run time complexity at that time. As disk size passed 10GB at the time, that wasn't much of a problem either.

Shure, shared libraries (DLLs in windows speak) were standard from the times when resources have been sparse. My first linux install 25 years ago (... in 1993) was full of .so files - shared libraries.

I meant the development process, the programming of complex software with a lot of dependencies. Think about the controls of new features which have to be disabled for older CR files and similar dependencies. While it is always possible to put a lot of features together ... it is the working hours to TEST THE SOFTWARE which makes these processes very expensive. But in my opinion the frameworks to help programmers to check software dependencies (not what the compiler does but some other framwork specific for each type of software) were developed later maybe during 2000 - 2010 when a lot of software grew in complexity.

My experience in programming (of small projects) is that writing is done in e.g. 2 weeks, testing needs 6 weeks before you have a first usable version and after 6 months users have found most of the errors - I speak of internet based apps like a simple intranet or a library management.

And I think Canon is very conservative - they do not want to sell HW or SW which doesn't work as expected. They are always a little bit later but they are there. And DPP is a very good software + included in the box.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,245
403
mb66energy said:
Antono Refa said:
mb66energy said:
Antono Refa said:
mb66energy said:
ethanz said:
Yeah it seems a little late for that?

I do not think - it's for those who started early with digital and do not want to switch between versions of DPP.
If older versions of DPP supported those cameras, why did Canon dropped support later on?

Maybe Canon found that it is to complicated to keep routines for all camera types in one big software: To complex, to much computing resources during runtime. In ~2003 when the 300D came out designing complex software wasn't that easy and the windows operating systems were not what they are today.

Modular design & shared libraries is hardly a new concept. MS Windows had DLLs in day one, back in the eighties, I trust Mac OS & Linux had shared libraries long before 2003 as well.

So DPP could have had modular support for varying cameras with zero virtual memory & run time complexity at that time. As disk size passed 10GB at the time, that wasn't much of a problem either.

Sure, shared libraries (DLLs in windows speak) were standard from the times when resources have been sparse. My first linux install 25 years ago (... in 1993) was full of .so files - shared libraries.

I meant the development process, the programming of complex software with a lot of dependencies. Think about the controls of new features which have to be disabled for older CR files and similar dependencies. While it is always possible to put a lot of features together ... it is the working hours to TEST THE SOFTWARE which makes these processes very expensive.

Not necessary. Canon can have one shared library per camera that knows which (= is hard coded to handle) features its raw files support and which aren't.

E.g. DPP doesn't need to say 'oh, this is 5DmkIV, sum two halves into one pixel, this is 300D, so don't'. It should have a 300D dll that doesn't know about DPAF, and a 5DmkIV dll that handles DPAF unconditionally.

This simplifies testing. DPP should process X raw files from each old camera, and the dlls' output [possibly intermediate, and never seen by customers] should be compared to whatever came out from the previous version.
 
<-- start Taboola -->