# Canon updates DPP and EOS Utility, adds full EOS R6 and EOS-1D X Mark III support



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 9, 2021)

> Canon has released new versions of both Digital Photo Professional and EOS Utility to give you full compatibility with the Canon EOS R6 and Canon EOS-1D X Mark III, both cameras received major firmware updates this week.
> Changes for Digital Photo Professional 4.15.0 & EOS Utility
> 
> Supports Firmware Version 1.5.0 or later for the EOS-1D X Mark III.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## JustUs7 (Jul 9, 2021)

I know product support is necessary. But it’s not that exciting of an update.

I would love it if they came out with panorama stitching! And update it to run native on M1.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 9, 2021)

Really want to see a proper update to DPP! Like clarity and de-haze sliders and colour vibrance and stuff.


----------



## xiaohuaa (Jul 9, 2021)

Wonder what’s the new function added to R6 and 1dx that makes dpp need an update


----------



## tq0cr5i (Jul 10, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Really want to see a proper update to DPP! Like clarity and de-haze sliders and colour vibrance and stuff.



DPP is an ancient and slow software. Even v.4.15 has no hardware acceleration in converting RAW. The GPU is only for viewing images and restricted in NVIDIA CUDA 2.0 or above.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 10, 2021)

tq0cr5i said:


> DPP is an ancient and slow software. Even v.4.15 has no hardware acceleration in converting RAW. The GPU is only for viewing images and restricted in NVIDIA CUDA 2.0 or above.


I know what you’re saying, but I still use it over lightroom. Lightroom is way too cluttered for me. Also Canon’s digital lens optimiser is awesome for macro work!


----------



## SnowMiku (Jul 10, 2021)

I wish they would update DPP4 so you can use an AMD GPU, maybe one day.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 10, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> I wish they would update DPP4 so you can use an AMD GPU, maybe one day.


What do you mean? I use DPP with an AMD GPU and it’s fine.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jul 10, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> What do you mean? I use DPP with an AMD GPU and it’s fine.


You can still use it, but only GPU acceleration loading pictures with an Nvidia GPU.


----------



## PhotonShark (Jul 10, 2021)

tq0cr5i said:


> DPP is an ancient and slow software. Even v.4.15 has no hardware acceleration in converting RAW. The GPU is only for viewing images and restricted in NVIDIA CUDA 2.0 or above.


Be careful. There are those who vigorously defend this software because it’s “free”.

Have a look at the replies to this thread.

DPP 5.0


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 11, 2021)

PhotonShark said:


> Be careful. There are those who vigorously defend this software because it’s “free”.


Its a matter of expectations. Some put the bar at a fully functional software, such as photoshop, and would inevitably find the free software disappointing. Some look at the bang for the buck ratio, and are likely happy with what they get for free.

Like FamilyGuy, I would be happy if DPP could stitch panoramas. Actually, I would be happy if DxO photolab could stitch panoramas. I use Photoshop for that, and one of the reasons I tried to stitch panoramas with PSP, and it doesn't work as well. Which is the point - Canon is a camera manufacturer. Its not in the business of photo editing software, and isn't competing with Adobe, certainly not with its free offering of DPP.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jul 11, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Its a matter of expectations. Some put the bar at a fully functional software, such as photoshop, and would inevitably find the free software disappointing. Some look at the bang for the buck ratio, and are likely happy with what they get for free.
> 
> Like FamilyGuy, I would be happy if DPP could stitch panoramas. Actually, I would be happy if DxO photolab could stitch panoramas. I use Photoshop for that, and one of the reasons I tried to stitch panoramas with it, and it doesn't work as well. Which is the point - Canon is a camera manufacturer. Its not in the business of photo editing software, and isn't competing with Adobe, certainly not with its free offering of DPP.


I use Affinity Photo for panorama stitching. $25, fully functional with updates and no subscription. I process in DPP4 and stitch in Affinity.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Its a matter of expectations. Some put the bar at a fully functional software, such as photoshop, and would inevitably find the free software disappointing. Some look at the bang for the buck ratio, and are likely happy with what they get for free.
> 
> Like FamilyGuy, I would be happy if DPP could stitch panoramas. Actually, I would be happy if DxO photolab could stitch panoramas. I use Photoshop for that, and one of the reasons I tried to stitch panoramas with it, and it doesn't work as well. Which is the point - Canon is a camera manufacturer. Its not in the business of photo editing software, and isn't competing with Adobe, certainly not with its free offering of DPP.


How long ago were you using PS and it didn’t work for you? Are you doing complicated multirow stitches, handheld two or three images etc. It is one of the features they have upgraded under the hood without really telling people.

I find PS stitching to be very good, indeed in LR I now regularly blend and stitch at the same time entirely automatically In one click.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> How long ago were you using PS and it didn’t work for you? Are you doing complicated multirow stitches, handheld two or three images etc. It is one of the features they have upgraded under the hood without really telling people.
> 
> I find PS stitching to be very good, indeed in LR I now regularly blend and stitch at the same time entirely automatically In one click.


Reading again my reply, I realize I've mis-edited it.

Photoshop is the best stitching software I've tried to date, and it rarely fails. I meant to write I tried Paint Shop Pro, and it failed where Photoshop stitched the photos without a hitch. I could try PTGui, which I've heard is excellent, but why make my life more complicated?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 11, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> I use Affinity Photo for panorama stitching. $25, fully functional with updates and no subscription. I process in DPP4 and stitch in Affinity.


Thanks for the recommendation, will give it a shot.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Reading again my reply, I realize I've mis-edited it.
> 
> Photoshop is the best stitching software I've tried to date, and it rarely fails. I meant to write I tried Paint Shop Pro, and it failed where Photoshop stitched the photos without a hitch. I could try PTGui, which I've heard is excellent, but why make my life more complicated?


I’ve used PTGui for extreme panoramas and 360° shots, it is an amazing tool for that kind of thing but I have found PS rarely fails, if it does it is normally due to my bad capture practices.


----------



## PhotonShark (Jul 12, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Its a matter of expectations.



Absolutely. I think you’ll find that’s the point I was making in that thread.



Antono Refa said:


> Canon is a camera manufacturer. Its not in the business of photo editing software, and isn't competing with Adobe, certainly not with its free offering of DPP.



Correct. But, the camera that they are competing with is in everyone’s pocket. I do not expect a Lightroom/Photoshop replacement. Nor do I expect a fully functioning DAM system.

But, Canon is selling cameras worth thousands of dollars (if you include the lenses). I expect 2020 level software that allows me to get the images off my camera with ease, process the RAW files with some simple post processing that produces good quality images for sharing directly or opening in other software. Remember, Canon keep the lens image data to themselves and lenses like the 24-240RF are designed with digital correction in mind. There is no excuse for 7 year old, clunky software.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 12, 2021)

PhotonShark said:


> o





PhotonShark said:


> Be careful. There are those who vigorously defend this software because it’s “free”.
> 
> Have a look at the replies to this thread.
> 
> DPP 5.0


don't think I can understand if people hanging around in a forum like this discussing all the latest gear for thousands and thousands of dollars would even blink an eye at subscription costs of the Adobe photography plan of about 12 dollars per month ... in comparison to any lately announced lens or body this is so negligible that in relation it can also be considered 'free'


----------



## JustUs7 (Jul 12, 2021)

yeahright said:


> don't think I can understand if people hanging around in a forum like this discussing all the latest gear for thousands and thousands of dollars would even blink an eye at subscription costs of the Adobe photography plan of about 12 dollars per month ... in comparison to any lately announced lens or body this is so negligible that in relation it can also be considered 'free'


Many of us have a hobby and enjoy our Canon gear and enjoy discussing photography. Myself, I’ve never spent more than $600 on a lens or $1,000 on a body. I would not consider at all committing $144 a year to software when the bulk of my photography comes from family time and a couple vacations a year. 
This isn’t a pro-photographers forum.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jul 12, 2021)

yeahright said:


> don't think I can understand if people hanging around in a forum like this discussing all the latest gear for thousands and thousands of dollars would even blink an eye at subscription costs of the Adobe photography plan of about 12 dollars per month ... in comparison to any lately announced lens or body this is so negligible that in relation it can also be considered 'free'


I personally hate subs with a passion. Give me a product I can buy, and I'll choose if I want to update it to the next version when it arrives. I really don't care if it costs more than the 12 per/mo in a 1 year time period (although I'll admit I try to keep it under that price point).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 14, 2021)

yeahright said:


> don't think I can understand if people hanging around in a forum like this discussing all the latest gear for thousands and thousands of dollars would even blink an eye at subscription costs of the Adobe photography plan of about 12 dollars per month ... in comparison to any lately announced lens or body this is so negligible that in relation it can also be considered 'free'



Some of us don't use DPP because it's free. We have plenty of paid applications that we use for all of our non-Canon images.

We use DPP because of the Digital Lens Optimizer and also because we prefer the color we get, and the much more granular level of control we get controlling color, than what ACR (via either LR or PS) provides.

Yes, it's slow and clunky, even when using an NVidia GPU with enough Cuda cores. But it gives me results I can't get with Adobe products or anyone else's. So I use it most of the time.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Some of us don't use DPP because it's free. We have plenty of paid applications that we use for all of our non-Canon images.
> 
> We use DPP because of the Digital Lens Optimizer and also because we prefer the color we get, and the much more granular level of control we get controlling color, than what ACR (via either LR or PS) provides.
> 
> Yes, it's slow and clunky, even when using an NVidia GPU with enough Cuda cores. But it gives me results I can't get with Adobe products or anyone else's. So I use it most of the time.


I, too, miss DLO in LR, and there are some other things as well. However, there are more functions that I would miss in LR - color grading, geometry rectification, panorama stitching, texture, vibrance, local edits, etc., and LR allows me to use Loupedeck+ for editing, which speeds up things big time. And I also cannot live with DPP modifiying CR2-files by writing the development information directly in the file. Originals must remain unedited, period. Exporting all the development information as recipes instead is extremely cumbersome, as is combining DPP and LR by performing lens optimization in DPP, then exporting to an intermediate format, e.g. 16-bit TIFF, and then continuing in LR. And it blows up storage requirements. So there's no realistic workflow using both programs, therefore, I'm using the one that has the options I use more frequently, which is LR.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 18, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> I use Affinity Photo for panorama stitching. $25, fully functional with updates and no subscription. I process in DPP4 and stitch in Affinity.


Same here, and it is easy and very effective.

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

yeahright said:


> I, too, miss DLO in LR, and there are some other things as well. However, there are more functions that I would miss in LR - color grading, geometry rectification, panorama stitching, texture, vibrance, local edits, etc., and LR allows me to use Loupedeck+ for editing, which speeds up things big time. And I also cannot live with DPP modifiying CR2-files by writing the development information directly in the file. Originals must remain unedited, period. Exporting all the development information as recipes instead is extremely cumbersome, as is combining DPP and LR by performing lens optimization in DPP, then exporting to an intermediate format, e.g. 16-bit TIFF, and then continuing in LR. And it blows up storage requirements. So there's no realistic workflow using both programs, therefore, I'm using the one that has the options I use more frequently, which is LR.



Well good for you. Use whatever you want.

But please stop assuming everyone who uses DPP does so only because it is "free".


----------



## yeahright (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Well good for you. Use whatever you want.
> 
> But please stop assuming everyone who uses DPP does so only because it is "free".


I never wrote that I assume that.

I wrote that I don't think that the price of the Adobe photography plan could be a valid argument for not using it in comparison to owning gear worth many years' worth of subscription.


----------



## becceric (Aug 10, 2021)

yeahright said:


> I never wrote that I assume that.
> 
> I wrote that I don't think that the price of the Adobe photography plan could be a valid argument for not using it in comparison to owning gear worth many years' worth of subscription.


I personally don’t care for the subscription business model in most cases. Especially if any form of auto pay is involved. Having payments become a background event has the effect of accepting multiple hands in one’s wallet,thus diminishing my savings towards my next lens purchase.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 29, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Some of us don't use DPP because it's free. We have plenty of paid applications that we use for all of our non-Canon images.
> 
> We use DPP because of the Digital Lens Optimizer and also because we prefer the color we get, and the much more granular level of control we get controlling color, than what ACR (via either LR or PS) provides.
> 
> Yes, it's slow and clunky, even when using an NVidia GPU with enough Cuda cores. But it gives me results I can't get with Adobe products or anyone else's. So I use it most of the time.


Same. I don’t even find it all that slow to be honest.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 21, 2021)

yeahright said:


> I never wrote that I assume that.
> 
> I wrote that I don't think that the price of the Adobe photography plan could be a valid argument for not using it in comparison to owning gear worth many years' worth of subscription.



You wrote that you can't understand why people who spend thousands on gear aren't willing to pay $10-12 per month for a LR subscription. That strongly implied that you think the reason people use DPP instead of LR is because it's "free", not because they might find DPP more useful for their needs than LR (or Capture One, On1, DxO, etc.). I don't use LR, but I do use C1 and On1 when I find them useful for a specific image or set of images. I update On1 every year and C1 usually every other year. But I use DPP for most of my raw processing/conversion because I prefer the results I get from it more than the results I get from the others.


----------



## yeahright (Nov 23, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You wrote that you can't understand why people who spend thousands on gear aren't willing to pay $10-12 per month for a LR subscription. That strongly implied that you think the reason people use DPP instead of LR is because it's "free", not because they might find DPP more useful for their needs than LR (or Capture One, On1, DxO, etc.). I don't use LR, but I do use C1 and On1 when I find them useful for a specific image or set of images. I update On1 every year and C1 usually every other year. But I use DPP for most of my raw processing/conversion because I prefer the results I get from it more than the results I get from the others.


my post was only in response to


PhotonShark said:


> Be careful. There are those who vigorously defend this software because it’s “free”.
> 
> Have a look at the replies to this thread.
> 
> DPP 5.0


so I was only talking about those said people who defend DPP *because it is free* (i.e., for whom this aspect is a primary reason for using it). I did not intend to imply anything about people using it for any other reason. So I do not say that many people use it because it's free, but for those people who do, I say this argument is questionable.


----------

