I suggest you write to Canon and demand they return the money you paid for it.DPP 4 is over 6 years old. Surely it's time for a new version? The interface is clunky, dated and really not in line with the modern and expensive bodies that Canon is producing.
Maybe it's time for Canon to enter into a partnership with a company that does better software?
Such a helpful, considerate and well thought out reply. Added a lot of value. Thank you.I suggest you write to Canon and demand they return the money you paid for it.
I'm using it, albeit with the 1DX2 and I find it to be relatively good for the basic corrections. Before I upgraded my computer to one that is not too far from the top some things were excessively slow, like spot retouching, but no complaints now. That's not to deny that it couldn't be better but I don't think Canon intends to get into that business. Compare it to Nikon's.Such a helpful, considerate and well thought out reply. Added a lot of value. Thank you.
But, it is the bundled software with the roughly $4000 Canon EOS R5. The only software that has the manufacturer supplied lens correction data and that fully supports all the camera information written into the RAW files.
That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't expect it to have the greatest DAM in the world, nor do I expect it to have the filters, artistic presets and all the other goodies that a photo artist might like. There are plenty of providers in that game.That's not to deny that it couldn't be better but I don't think Canon intends to get into that business. Compare it to Nikon's.![]()
You paid $4,000 for the R5. Others got it with a cheap rebel or powershot. That one time payment is split between R&D & manufacturing of the camera, and SW maintenance until the next time you buy a camera. And we all know that's going to be less & less frequent.But, it is the bundled software with the roughly $4000 Canon EOS R5. The only software that has the manufacturer supplied lens correction data and that fully supports all the camera information written into the RAW files.
Here you are right. And I don't know why Canon isn't willing to give that data away (proprietary data, company confidential???) or why those big players prefer to cook that data themselves and not willing to pay Canon for it.... it is the only software that has the manufacturers lens data and RAW information ...
I think I made my main complaint fairly clear. But, I'll repeat it.If your main complaint is about the RAW file cooking combined with a great image processing SW see the workaround above.
If you want a great image processing SW with all the bells and whistles for free, stop dreaming.
Oh please. The program does exactly what they say it does and it does what it does as good or better than any other software out there. It does this at no perceivable added cost to the consumer. Could it have a slicker interface and be a faster? Sure. But, again, it does what it does very well for no added cost. You seem to take umbrage at the high-performance part. Write a letter to their marketing department since Canon must be the only company out there using overly flattering language to describe their product. You argue that a $4000 camera should come with better software? I'll argue that someone willing to pay $4000 for a camera should be willing to pry their wallet open one more time for some software if they feel the freebie isn't up to snuff. DXO has excellent lens profiles for all of the Canon lenses I own, but unfortunately those greedy buggers want money for their software. The world can be awful hard at times...I think I made my main complaint fairly clear. But, I'll repeat it.
I do not expect Canon to make a LightRoom replacement. I don't even expect them to make a PhotoShop Elements, or an ACDSee replacement. I'm more than happy to pay for that, should I need it.
But, they are a world leading camera manufacture. Some of their new lenses are specifically sold to be digitally corrected (RF 24-240mm springs to mind). They even tout their own software as, and I quote ...
Digital Photo Professional (DPP) is a high-performance RAW image processing, viewing and editing software for EOS digital cameras and PowerShot models with RAW capability. Using DPP you can easily perform basic and advanced editing and printing of RAW images. An example of the available editing functions are image rotation, white balance adjustment, dynamic-range adjustment, colour adjustment and fine-tuning of tone curve characteristics.
The software is over 6 years old. The interface is clunky and difficult to use. It is years past "high-performance". I don't think it's too much to ask that the software be brought up to date in order to use this functionality more easily.
Review sites like this could play a part in getting this sorted. Imagine if every review site simply stated that the bundled software is in need of a refresh when doing a review. They're quick to say that a camera still supports an old version of USB 3.1, that it has only a single card slot. But nowhere is it mentioned that the bundled software just isn't up to scratch.
Yes you did. And I don't disagree with you. I just put in my 2 cents for you to consider.I think I made my main complaint fairly clear. But, I'll repeat it. ...
... and not a world leading imaging SW company. Correct.But, they are a world leading camera manufacture...
What is wrong here? Esp. if it's for free?Some of their new lenses are specifically sold to be digitally corrected (RF 24-240mm springs to mind). They even tout their own software as, and I quote ...
Digital Photo Professional (DPP) is a high-performance RAW image processing, viewing and editing software for EOS digital cameras and PowerShot models with RAW capability. Using DPP you can easily perform basic and advanced editing and printing of RAW images. An example of the available editing functions are image rotation, white balance adjustment, dynamic-range adjustment, colour adjustment and fine-tuning of tone curve characteristics.
Of course it would be fine if Canon put in - say - 10, 20% of their stills R&D in DPP and still give it away for free.The software is over 6 years old. The interface is clunky and difficult to use. It is years past "high-performance". I don't think it's too much to ask that the software be brought up to date in order to use this functionality more easily.
Don't overestimate these pages as long as cams and lenses are sold well...Review sites like this could play a part in getting this sorted.
That was 100% my point. Stated clearly, more than once.Could it have a slicker interface and be a faster? Sure.
Actually, it's part of the cost of the camera.But, again, it does what it does very well for no added cost.
Again, this is a straw man argument. I clearly stated that I am willing to pay for software. I clearly stated that a camera manufacture doesn't need to be in the competitive business of photo artistry and digital asset management.I'll argue that someone willing to pay $4000 for a camera should be willing to pry their wallet open one more time for some software if they feel the freebie isn't up to snuff.
Sometimes you need to play the LP again, when questions are asked and the answers were in the song. ;-)Yes you did. And I don't disagree with you. I just put in my 2 cents for you to consider.
By just repeating arguments again you start to sound like an LP with scratches.
Actually, they are very much a word leading imaging software company. There is extremely powerful code running in their cameras to process the raw data from the sensor and create the final images that are corrected at many frames per second for scene conditions and lens correction.... and not a world leading imaging SW company. Correct.
And, I told you what that I feel that DPP is in need of an upgrade. If you're going to put that record on again, I'm going to have to play it again. ;-)I told you what you can do after RAW and lens cooking, if you don't feel fine with DPP.
Canon sold 15 million cameras in 2019. Or around 100 million cameras since DPP was released. I think 10 cents a camera might just get us a new version of the software. Don't you?Of course it would be fine if Canon put in - say - 10, 20% of their stills R&D in DPP and still give it away for free.
Agreed. But, as we all know, there is massive downward pressure on camera manufacturers as more and more people realise that they can capture the moment just fine with their smart phones and a consumer that expects to get get software for under a dollar.And here they get ROI and EBIT because they can sell cams and lenses.
The return on investment is consumers who find the experience easy and turn to your products. Like it or not, the experience isn't just holding the camera and taking the snap. The experience ends with the final image. In 2020 that image is on a display. As a manufacturer, you would surely want that experience to be as pleasurable as possible. It should be easy to get the image off your camera and onto something that you can correct for lens issues and do a bit of basic image adjustment. Obtaining a .JPEG/.HEIC file for sharing and storage should be as easy as possible. Your software should be up to date and in line with the modern operating systems that consumers are used to.If they would think they could get EBIT with DPP then you would see a new version each year, I suppose.
Would you pay a buck? That's $100 million for Canon since DPP was released.But do you want to pay extra for a (slightly) better interface and a (little bit) faster DPP?
Me not.
I'm happy that people have other ideas. That's the great thing about the world. Difference is how we learn and correct for error. But, to be fair, I am at a loss as to why anyone (not pointing at you) would be defending 6 year old software that accompanies cameras being sold into the thousands of dollars. Even more if you add the lens sales. My opinion is that Canon needs to either up their software game, or give up on it completely and make their lens/raw data available for all and sundry. This middle ground isn't good for them, and it certainly isn't good for us.Contine with your complaints. Maybe it will work. I don't think so.
Accept that others don't share your opinion - or at least put some other aspects into account, too.
As long as DPP stays free and not cloud based, I'll take every improvement with cheers.![]()
Dude, if that's your way of argumentation, then I am out.Sometimes you need to play the LP again, when questions are asked and the answers were in the song. ;-)
...