Hope DPP3.X can support New 1DX2, DPP4 is not good :-(

[WoSoLoo]

DPP3 is much more easy to use, DPP4 too many option and slow

[kvbarkley]

Sorry, it won't. I am pretty sure that Canon is not going to support older cameras on DPP3 - though I have no inside knowledge.

[WoSoLoo]

so bad, do they know DPP4 problem?

[kvbarkley]

Don't know, you are certainly free to call and tell them. But many people use DPP4 just fine.

[Waddizzle]

DPP4 is a decent application for use with consumer cameras.  I think a professional grade camera, like the 1DX2, is worthy of better, and more sophisticated software, like Adobe Lightroom.  Don't you?

[kvbarkley]

I kinda figure it is just early in the development cycle.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

DPP4 is a decent application for use with consumer cameras.  I think a professional grade camera, like the 1DX2, is worthy of better, and more sophisticated software, like Adobe Lightroom.  Don't you?

---

In a word, no. It all depends on what you're requirements are. If all you're doing is cropping, rotating, applying lens corrections, and adjusting brightness, contrast, white balance, tone, etc., then DPP 4 is perfectly satisfactory and arguably supports a more straightforward workflow than do PS and LR. But for really elaborate corrections, like rescuing a horribly exposed but mission critical image, PS may be the only thing that can save you.

IMO, many photographers who use Photoshop don't really need it; they're using it because of its reputation, not its functionality. If that doesn't bother them, it certainly doesn't bother me. 

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

DPP4 is a decent application for use with consumer cameras.  I think a professional grade camera, like the 1DX2, is worthy of better, and more sophisticated software, like Adobe Lightroom.  Don't you?

---

In a word, no. It all depends on what you're requirements are. If all you're doing is cropping, rotating, applying lens corrections, and adjusting brightness, contrast, white balance, tone, etc., then DPP 4 is perfectly satisfactory and arguably supports a more straightforward workflow that do PS and LR. But for really elaborate corrections, like rescuing a horribly exposed but mission critical image, PS may be the only thing that can save you.

IMO, many photographers who use Photoshop don't really need it; they're using it because of its reputation, not its functionality. If that doesn't bother them, it certainly doesn't bother me. 

---

I would say that DPP 4 with its adjustable midpoint is as good at rescuing horribly exposed images as any software out there. DPP3 on the other hand, was aweful in that regard.

[WoSoLoo]

I have PS LR, but it is waste time for proceed large number of photos

[Waddizzle]

---

@WoSoLoo wrote:

I have PS LR, but it is waste time for proceed large number of photos

---

To each his own, I guess.  LR6 is much faster than DPP3 and DPP4 for most tasks.  Both the lastest versions of LR6 and DPP4 run best with at least 16GB of RAM, especially DPP4.  You should be running with a 64-bit CPU, too, with plenty of free disk space to use as virtual memory.