R5 Workflow concerns

Gözler

EOS M50
Aug 2, 2019
28
12
Got my R5 with 24-104 lens, love it! My first mirroless camera. After 5D3 since 2012 I finally upgraded. Auto focus is so good (people and animals). Anyhow, I got FTP transfer working (with my Mac Mini running an older version of Mac OS as newer versions do not support ftp anymore). The transfer was pretty fast and not having to take out the card or tethering the camera to the computer is really great. Jpeg images I tested out of the camera look great. But I prefer RAW.
I know Lightroom does not yet support the RAW images from the R5 so we cannot compare, but DPP4 takes ~1m15s seconds to convert a RAW image to JPEG! This was on a Macbook Pro 2.8GHz Quad core i7 with plenty of RAM. Looking at the CPU load, it is CPU bound (cores are pretty much pegged at 100%). There is a pre-release DNG converter from Adobe I hear, I have not tried it yet. Anyone tried that, how does it perform in terms of speed?

I will not be shooting 8K video, but I tried it anyway. It takes over 50GB for about 2 minutes of video and it is painfully slow to transfer from the camera using the USB C. I did not try the FTP over 5G wifi, but I cannot imagine how it would be better. It seems like it will be a while before we have options for a less painfull workflow and of course upgrading your computer and storage is looming. I am not upgrading until ARM version of the Macbook pro is out (may be end of the year).
 
Last edited:

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS R
CR Pro
Nov 12, 2016
876
597
The Adobe DNG converter is very fast. I have a 2014 Macbook Pro and it takes a few seconds to convert an R5 CR3 to a DNG. I don't notice much difference at all compared to when I used to run EOS R CR3s through the DNG converter. For now I just convert a whole folder of R5 photos to DNG before I work with them, then delete the DNGs. Hopefully soon more programs support the R5 raw files.
 
Feb 15, 2020
329
240
The Adobe DNG converter is very fast. I have a 2014 Macbook Pro and it takes a few seconds to convert an R5 CR3 to a DNG. I don't notice much difference at all compared to when I used to run EOS R CR3s through the DNG converter. For now I just convert a whole folder of R5 photos to DNG before I work with them, then delete the DNGs. Hopefully soon more programs support the R5 raw files.
Good to hear! Does the DNG converter allow you to apply a colour profile before conversion?
 

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,119
3,258
Irving, Texas
Why do you guys convert to DNG instead of just tiff or jpeg? I shoot in RAW, but everything I do becomes a tiff or jpeg. What is the advantage of DNG?
 

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS R
CR Pro
Nov 12, 2016
876
597
Why do you guys convert to DNG instead of just tiff or jpeg? I shoot in RAW, but everything I do becomes a tiff or jpeg. What is the advantage of DNG?
I just want a raw file that I can open with Lightroom/Photoshop. To me converting the photos is not a final step in the process, it's the first step. I can barely do anything with a CR3 from the R5 right now, but DNG is obviously a file that Adobe understands, so I convert them to DNG. To me the DNGs are no different than the CR3s, they're just a starting point to edit from. I don't even know how you could convert an R5 CR3 directly to a tiff right now.

Also like I said, when I'm done working with a folder, I'll delete the DNGs and just keep the original raw files, because I know converting to DNGs is just a stopgap until Adobe can read R5 raw files natively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gözler

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,327
1,114
Why do you guys convert to DNG instead of just tiff or jpeg? I shoot in RAW, but everything I do becomes a tiff or jpeg. What is the advantage of DNG?
DNG adds some metadata to its internal TIFF to give you white balance adjustment.
 

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS R
CR Pro
Nov 12, 2016
876
597
With DPP4, which Canon provides.
Ok, well, like I said, the DNG converter seems to be fast and convenient. Is using DPP and converting to a tiff better? Yeah maybe. But again like I said these are all just stopgap solutions until I can work with the raw files directly with Adobe. But, then again if converting to tiff in DPP is better quality than using the raw files in Adobe, well then that might be better long term.
 

Gözler

EOS M50
Aug 2, 2019
28
12
Ok, well, like I said, the DNG converter seems to be fast and convenient. Is using DPP and converting to a tiff better? Yeah maybe. But again like I said these are all just stopgap solutions until I can work with the raw files directly with Adobe. But, then again if converting to tiff in DPP is better quality than using the raw files in Adobe, well then that might be better long term.
I tried the DNG converter, it way faster than the DPP4, 105 files were converted in less time than DPP4 took to convert 2 files.

I tried DPP4 conversion to TIFF (16bit), it as slow as conversion to JPEG. For now DNG converter is the way to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kit Lens Jockey