Why two versions of DPP and EOS Utility

[Miamic70]

I am just curious why there are two version of DPP and EOS utility. Why wouldn't Canon just add support for all their cameras into DPP 4? Same with EOS utility. Now I have to have both versions installed on my MAC and Canon seemingly is continuing to develop for both based on updates which seems like a waste of resources.

[ebiggs1]

I do the same because I still have and old 1D.  I will guess a couple reasons is 64-bit vs 32-bit.  And features that are on newer cameras are not simpatico with the older ones.  And likely even more upgrades are coming to new models.  This is not uncommon all software advances and no longer supports "legacy" componets.  Whether Canon or whomever.

[Miamic70]

Good points. However, my 70d which is a very recent camera pops up the older version of EOS utility v2 and my Rebel Xsi which is ancient works with either version 3 or 4 of DPP. Seems pretty inconsistent to me. Also, most OS's have been 64 bulit for years.

[ebiggs1]

There is bound to be overlap.  

Plus, if you are a RAW shooter you already know how different each camera's RAW file is.  So is this really surprising?  I am afraid we just have to contend with it.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Miamic70 wrote:
Good points. However, my 70d which is a very recent camera pops up the older version of EOS utility v2 and my Rebel Xsi which is ancient works with either version 3 or 4 of DPP. Seems pretty inconsistent to me. Also, most OS's have been 64 bulit for years.

---

Canon recently acknowledged a problem with some of the higher-end crop cameras that were supposed to work with  EOS Utility V3, but didn't. New releases of EOSU 3 and DPP4 came out last week. Be sure to try them if you haven't already; maybe they'll fix the problem.

Are you sure that DPP4 works with your XSi? (It doesn't with my 50D or my wife's T2i.) Note that DPP4 will open thumbnails from even a camera that it doesn't support, but it won't do anything else useful (even sort or rename, which is annoying).

I can understand why Canon resists upgrading DPP3 to recognize DPP4's Exif data. But it's just plain silly that DPP4 isn't downwards compatible with DPP3. After all, they could just punt and have it invoke DPP3, like they did with EOS Utility.

[ebiggs1]

While on the subject of DPP 4, I must admit it is pretty nice (I try all the updates before going back to LR).  For a freebie, it is very nice.   But it does need to support more Canon models.  After all Adobe can do that!

Maybe in another 10 yeasr or so, Canon will finally get it right. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

While on the subject of DPP 4, I must admit it is pretty nice (I try all the updates before going back to LR).  For a freebie, it is very nice.   But it does need to support more Canon models.  After all Adobe can do that!

Maybe in another 10 yeasr or so, Canon will finally get it right. 

---

Maybe they will, but I think the jury's still out. One disconcerting fact is that around 2008, when I first used DPP, it didn't do much but was exceptionally reliable. You could go weeks without encountering a bug. But as it became more feature rich, it became perceptibly slower and buggier, a trend that took a major turn for the worse with the first release of DPP 4. They've fixed a few things, but DPP 4 is still buggy and extremely slow. (You sure wouldn't want to run it on a 32-bit OS.) If Canon doesn't get a grip on this situation within the next few months, I think their users may start to give up on DPP. And if Canon reads this, I hope they understand that I'm basically a DPP advocate who didn't have to be pried away from Photoshoppe. One can only imagine what the skeptics must think.

[ebiggs1]

Well it certainly isn't Lightroom and not even Bridge.  It is beyond the pale to mention it in the same sentence with Photoshop.

But it is free and it does work.  Mostly!

[ebiggs1]

I got to thinking, (I know not good) I am sure Canon has software experts and computer gurus that test the software.  But what they really need is normal users for beta testers.  The average joe will find a bug fater than any guru.

I beta test for Makemusic (Finale), long time now, along with about a dozen other average guys.  We all know music and not necessarily computer savy.  I have done beta testing for Adobe, too, but just off and on.

Computer guys make anything run and that is why they are unreliable as testers.