# DPP 5.0



## PhotonShark (Oct 22, 2020)

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?


----------



## brad-man (Oct 22, 2020)

PhotonShark said:


> 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?


I suggest you write to Canon and demand they return the money you paid for it.


----------



## PhotonShark (Oct 22, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I suggest you write to Canon and demand they return the money you paid for it.


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.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 22, 2020)

PhotonShark said:


> 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.


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. 

Jack


----------



## PhotonShark (Oct 23, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> 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.



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. 

But, it is 6 year old software and (for the sake of repeating myself) it is the _only_ software that has the manufacturers lens data and RAW information. The level of "basic" that was acceptable in 2014 just isn't good enough in 2020. Not when it comes bundled with cameras that are up to $6500.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 23, 2020)

PhotonShark said:


> 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.



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.

E.g. I upgraded DSLRs about every three years. The only reason I'm going to upgrade to an R5 is the benefits of mirrorless, and I'm waiting for prices to drop, which means at least a year. Then I'll upgrade lenses as well. So good luck for Canon with the next camera upgrade, the R5 might be the only one I'll buy this decade.

There are two reasons Adobe went subscription. Same reasons DxO release a new version every year, and add new cameras to the new version only. Their bottom line, and the need to pay salaries to SW developers every month, even if photographers decide to buy a upgrade versions every other year, or longer.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 23, 2020)

Hi PhotonShark!

I think we all know the big players in the image processing SW market.
I think we all know what we have to pay for their SW and features. Either in credits or in data.
I think if Canon was planning to enter this market, they would only do so if they would see a chance to be at least #2 in the share. 
Do you think they would? 
Do you think that SW would come out cheaper than the others?
I don't. And that's the reason why they handle DPP as they do now.



PhotonShark said:


> ... it is the _only_ software that has the manufacturers lens data and RAW information ...


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.
If you don't feel well with their data alchemy feel free to use DPP just as RAW converter and transfer the converted pics to the SW you like most.

Personally, I am happy with DPP to have a decent SW 

free of charge
NOT (!) cloud based
appropriate small
I have used that %&*# other companies give away with their cams free of charge and I am happy that Canon does it better. 

To sum it up:
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.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 23, 2020)

It is not an unreasonable request that Canon improve their software. Canon also do not share key information with developers in general (though they may with some for all I know) as .cr3 files have had to be "reverse engineered" by others, and PhotoNinja has given up on them and you have to use a dng file via Adobe converter. I can't even install DPP4 and Canon Utilities on my fastest Mac and have had to use an older machine - it had the same problem as described here https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3990244 and on other sites. Having had to make do with DPP on my old laptop and LR for the past month since getting my R5, it was with great relief for me that DxO PL4 was released - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-save-30-on-new-purchases-and-upgrades.39524/

Canon is not a cheapjack company, but a market leading quality operation. If people in forums say they are prepared to put up with second-rate products from them, then that feedback is doing a disservice to the community.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 23, 2020)

It now seems from this new thread https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/this-is-canon-support.39535/ that Canon does not cooperate with Adobe.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 23, 2020)

There is much to be said for generous, quality extras. I buy frozen dumplings and always throw away those plastic packets of goo they call "sauce." On the other hand, I buy TJ's Orange Chicken, and the stuff in the packets is actually pretty good!

Anybody remember when cars came with real spare tires? Geesh. Now some don't even include the little donut.

Squeezing every penny of profit and savings in a diminishing market has consequences. 

Sigh...


----------



## PhotonShark (Oct 23, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 24, 2020)

PhotonShark said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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...


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 24, 2020)

PhotonShark said:


> I think I made my main complaint fairly clear. But, I'll repeat it. ...


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.

Here are some new/extended arguments:


> But, they are a world leading camera manufacture...


... and not a world leading imaging SW company. Correct.



> 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._


What is wrong here? Esp. if it's for free?
I told you what you can do after RAW and lens cooking, if you don't feel fine with DPP.



> 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.


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.
But Canon is an enterprise. Their first goal is to make money. And they are "_a world leading camera_ [and lens] _manufacture_" as you said.
And if you take a look at the complains some one or two years ago about not getting seriously into ML and see what they do now, you can imagine where they put their R&D ressources. And here they get ROI and EBIT because they can sell cams and lenses.
If they would think they could get EBIT with DPP then you would see a new version each year, I suppose.
But do you want to pay extra for a (slightly) better interface and a (little bit) faster DPP?
Me not.



> Review sites like this could play a part in getting this sorted.


Don't overestimate these pages as long as cams and lenses are sold well...


In the end I would say:
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.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 24, 2020)

Canon makes a serious range of products, including MRI, CT scanners, ultrasound etc that require advance imaging and they probably do have access to expert sw developers https://global.canon/en/business/professional.html


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 24, 2020)

I'm surprised that we get a software package as good as Canons and its free, you can use it with your $200 P&S or your high end camera. Like any software, the user interface requires lots of practice to learn its functions and quirks. Its normal and reasonable that we each prefer different human interfaces, Lightroom, DXO, Phase One, ACDSEE all have different interfaces. I don't like DXO or Phase one because I don't like side cars. DXO puts edit information back into the CR* container, Adobe puts it into a database. No one besides Canon modifies the RAW file that I'm aware of but software that uses Adobe DNG containers can include edits in the file much like Canon does. Those basic methods of storing data have implications in the software interface as well.

I've owned a Nikon DSLR and found the software package to be very limited, I haven't used Sony's but I don't hear people bragging about it.

The tabs on DPP4 are organized by type of adjustment which might appeal to some or not. I don't use it a lot and am probably missing some of the things it can do. Abobe is able to spend millions of dollars optimizing and researching photo editing software and ways to enhance photos. It is far more difficult to learn than DPP4. You need some training to even get started or you won't find a single photo. That puts many people off. Once you have learned how to run it, its not a big deal and the catalog approach has many benefits to payback for the difficult import process.

I use LR/Photoshop for serious images and ACDSEE for simple or temporary images. I pre-ordered Luminar AI in order to see how well it reduces the amount that I need to use my hands and fingers in the editing process. I have serious problems with the pain from using them a lot.

I also have the free DXO version and have tried dozens of add-ins, enhancers and the like. Non seemed worth the effort to me but others obviously love them or they would not exist.

A big deal when you are editing thousands of photos is the time it takes per photo. Some seem to take forever and doing 2,000 photos seems to me to be incomprehensible but doing 100 over 2 or 3 days might be fine. I usually end up with 1200 - 1400 photos after culling. Maybe 150 of them get selected for a photobook but all of them go on a DVD for the customer to pick and choose. They often pick ones I wouldn't because I am influenced by technical quality but they are influenced by content that they want to remember.


----------



## PhotonShark (Oct 25, 2020)

brad-man said:


> Could it have a slicker interface and be a faster? Sure.



That was 100% my point. Stated clearly, more than once.



> But, again, it does what it does very well for no added cost.



Actually, it's part of the cost of the camera.



> 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.



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.

However, these are digital cameras that produces RAW files that the manufacturer has chosen to keep proprietary. The manufacturer sells lenses that require digital correction that the manufacturer has also chosen to keep proprietary. Therefore, software is not an optional part of this product, it is a required part of this product. The manufacturer includes software as part of the bundle. It is over 6 years old and is well past due for an upgrade.


----------



## PhotonShark (Oct 25, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> 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.



Sometimes you need to play the LP again, when questions are asked and the answers were in the song. ;-)



> ... and not a world leading imaging SW company. Correct.



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.



> I told you what you can do after RAW and lens cooking, if you don't feel fine with DPP.



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. ;-)



> 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.



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?



> And here they get ROI and EBIT because they can sell cams and lenses.



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.



> If they would think they could get EBIT with DPP then you would see a new version each year, I suppose.



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.



> But do you want to pay extra for a (slightly) better interface and a (little bit) faster DPP?
> Me not.



Would you pay a buck? That's $100 million for Canon since DPP was released.



> 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.



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.

Edit : Like a lot of things in the modern world, media sites and influencers hold a disproportionate amount of sway. I've even seen Apple change things because the media have got a bee in their bonnet about something. You would be surprised how much can change if one of the big sites like DPReview added a line to their conclusion. "The included software with the Eos R5 is starting to show its age. Basic lens and image correction is becoming a chore and potential buyers need to factor in the cost of additional software to get the most out of this camera. There will also be a wait period while software companies do their best to bring their products up to date as Canon do not share camera information".


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 25, 2020)

As long as any of us requests a slicker interface or a similar term that is meaningless, there is zero chance of someone being able to do what is wanted. Slicker means 100 different things to 100 people. 
Various software packages appeal to different people. Are their some well thought out suggestions on how the interface should work? At least, that is something that could be discussed, but better or improved or slicker mean nothing.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 25, 2020)

PhotonShark said:


> Sometimes you need to play the LP again, when questions are asked and the answers were in the song. ;-)
> ...


Dude, if that's your way of argumentation, then I am out.
You've played that record too long and it's worn out yet.


----------



## Czardoom (Oct 25, 2020)

The fact that is 6 years old is a somewhat meaningless argument. It is updated with new camera and lens releases, so all of it's main features are up to date. It is free, despite your arguments to the contrary. I have no complaints with it whatsoever. As others have nentioned, compared to what you get with other brands' cameras, this is better. It does the job and costs nothing - I guess for some folks that is not enough.


----------



## PhotonShark (Oct 25, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Dude, if that's your way of argumentation, then I am out.
> You've played that record too long and it's worn out yet.



You might have noted the ";-)". That was the wink emoticon which indicated the light hearted nature of my reply. I presented valid arguments further on.


----------



## PhotonShark (Oct 25, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> The fact that is 6 years old is a somewhat meaningless argument.



Not really, 6 years ago Windows 10 hadn't been released and the Mac was still on Mavericks with the included iPhoto.



> It does the job and costs nothing - I guess for some folks that is not enough.



DPP 3.0 did the job too. Then they released DPP 4.0.

Canon Professional Network Publishes DPP 4.0 ... on this very site!

It's now time past time for DPP 5.0


----------



## brad-man (Oct 25, 2020)

I had an innocuous reply posted here that has been removed. There appears to be a heavy-handed moderator on the loose...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 27, 2020)

Personally, I'm efficient with it and like it for wildlife and I haven't been doing much landscape and other shots that would benefit from more capability. One thing does irk me and that is it always defaults to 3X2 and has no option to set it to anything else for the time you may be wanting that choice. It's silly to mention how old it is because they have added good features over the last two or three years, making it significantly more useful. And I find the lens specific sharpening to be excellent. 

Jack


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 27, 2020)

PhotonShark said:


> Actually, it's part of the cost of the camera.



I think you have excessive expectations.

Say the only camera I ever bought was the PowerShot G15, back in 2012. Still in my bag next to the laptop, still working. Am I entitled to DPP in the box, eight years (and going) of free upgrades, and a modern & slick UI? For the $500 I paid, that's a lot of mileage.

Nikon avoided this situation by making viewNX free, and captureNX for >$100.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 27, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> I think you have excessive expectations.
> 
> Say the only camera I ever bought was the PowerShot G15, back in 2012. Still in my bag next to the laptop, still working. Am I entitled to DPP in the box, eight years (and going) of free upgrades, and a modern & slick UI? For the $500 I paid, that's a lot of mileage.
> 
> Nikon avoided this situation by making viewNX free, and captureNX for >$100.


I downloaded CaptureNX from Nikon for free earlier this year. 
Manufacturers have to provide basic viewing and editing software for their cameras otherwise not many would buy them - if Canon didn't provide an updated DPP as each new model came out, then each new camera would be unusable for for months until 3rd party software companies got up to date. It doesn't cost Canon any extra cash to make new versions of DPP available for recent earlier models as it has to pay to make the upgrades available for the new ones,. The service consolidates its user base - I buy exclusively Swarovski binoculars because they offer a no questions asked free repair service or replacement of lost parts for at least 10 years. Looking after your customers pays off.


----------



## PhotonShark (Oct 27, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> I think you have excessive expectations.



As a matter of interest, what do you think my expectations are?

I'm not sure what the false equivalence of the ten 8 year old camera is about. When you bought your camera, it was DPP 3.

We're talking about brand new cameras with 6 year old software.


----------



## PhotonShark (Oct 27, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Looking after your customers pays off.



Exactly. Especially in an era where your biggest competition is the smartphone and the ease of use. The number of people who I know who have ditched "traditional" cameras because the process is becoming "too hard" is unbelievable.

And no. They're not putting filters on their smart phone pictures. They're not doing excessive editing. They just want the process of capturing the memory to looking at the memory to be as easy as possible.

I don't expect DPP to do that much more in the photo editing department. I do expect it to be up to date with a modern and easy to use interface that makes what it currently does, easier. I expect better export and file format options so that I can either share the photo or easily move it into other software for further processing.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 27, 2020)

PhotonShark said:


> As a matter of interest, what do you think my expectations are?



* Slick, easy to use, modern interface. You haven't given any concrete examples, so this can't be that important to you.

* High performance. You haven't given any qualitative expectations, so this can't be that important to you.

* Having a new version, measured by the time passed since the major version number was changed, so this must be really important to you.



PhotonShark said:


> I'm not sure what the false equivalence of the ten 8 year old camera is about. When you bought your camera, it was DPP 3.



Because there isn't any false equivalence. Once I bought the PowerShot G15, I can keep on download & install new versions of DPP for free. Somebody has to pay for all those upgrades, which means he doesn't pay for something else he'd like to have.



PhotonShark said:


> We're talking about brand new cameras with 6 year old software.



As noted before, the only reason you call it 6 year old software is because Canon didn't arbitrarily increment the major release number since. Canon could have followed the convention of other manufacturers, and name the first version of every year after that year, and suddenly DPP would be under a year old.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 27, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Manufacturers have to provide *basic* viewing and editing software for their cameras otherwise not many would buy them



Indeed.



AlanF said:


> It doesn't cost Canon any extra cash to make new versions of DPP available for recent earlier models as it has to pay to make the upgrades available for the new ones.



No, it doesn't. And that no extra cash covers no salaries for the SW team. So the new UI, and high performance features, and incremented version number has to be covered by the one time payment on new cameras. With the market shrinking, that's going to be less than you'd get from software companies that require monthly payments, or for each new upgrade.



AlanF said:


> The service consolidates its user base - I buy exclusively Swarovski binoculars because they offer a no questions asked free repair service or replacement of lost parts for at least 10 years. Looking after your customers pays off.



Yes, but those lost parts don't carry a monthly expense on SW team salaries, office space for them to sit in, electricity to make their computers run, etc. They can calculate the average price of lost parts over said period, and add it to the binoculars' price.


----------



## snapshot (Oct 27, 2020)

i downloaded and installed DPP to support the r5. happily i could still install and run it on win7. It would be cool, if they would provide raw readers and lens correction etc in the form of source code for a portable library. such a library & API would allow us to combine canon processing with the user interface of our choice. no more waiting for adobe, or dcraw to reverse engineer this stuff. i'll bet the hangup is patents canon licensed for algorithms in use both in DPP and in their cameras.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 27, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fortunately, Canon can do arithmetic and knows it is of no extra cost to them to have new versions of DPP backward compatible with their old models for very little, if any cost of furnishing their new models. They do do that for the EOS line and even modified DPP3 so it would be compatible with the original Rebel, the 300D after an earlier version of DPP lost compatibility. Of course it costs Swarovski money to give a lifetime warranty on their products and of course it costs me extra money to buy their products to pay for it, but it's worthwhile for me to buy something of quality that I know will not let me down or be disposable.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 27, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Fortunately, Canon can do arithmetic and knows it is of no extra cost to them to have new versions of DPP backward compatible with their old models for very little, if any cost of furnishing their new models.



I didn't say otherwise, and I don't see how it applies to anything I said. It doesn't cost them anything to keep DPP backward compatible with old models, but not charging you for the new versions, like DxO & Adobe, means it doesn't have as much resources to improve UI and performance.



AlanF said:


> Of course it costs Swarovski money to give a lifetime warranty on their products and of course it costs me extra money to buy their products to pay for it, but it's worthwhile for me to buy something of quality that I know will not let me down or be disposable.



How is that relevant to my argument? Go ahead and ask Canon for a lifetime warranty on cameras and lenses, and tell them I'm willing to pay extra for that as well.


----------



## PhotonShark (Oct 27, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> * Slick, easy to use, modern interface. You haven't given any concrete examples, so this can't be that important to you.



Let me answer by showing you the interface from when the software was released. It has barely changed, so I'm not surprised that there isn't a major release number. An example of a major release number would be going from DPP 3.0 to DPP 4.0

Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) 4: Software Overview and Interface Tour

Just watching the tutorial makes me cringe with how poorly designed the user interface was at the time, let alone by current standards.

As I've mentioned in another post. Canon have sold over 100 million cameras since DPP 4.0 was released and that's before the lenses and accessories that go with these cameras. Even if we took a 5 cents a camera off that, that's more than enough to bring the software up to spec.



> Because there isn't any false equivalence. Once I bought the PowerShot G15, I can keep on download & install new versions of DPP for free. Somebody has to pay for all those upgrades, which means he doesn't pay for something else he'd like to have.



The upgrades are for the new cameras. The cost for supporting the old cameras with properly designed software is negligible if anything. All the software needs to do is reference a database (created at the time) of camera and lens specific settings.


----------

