# What is the best Raw Converter for EOS M?



## Cb33 (Jul 15, 2013)

Loving my M so far, but I have CS 5.5 and so can't do direct raw processing in Adobe Camera Raw. So, I'm looking for a new way to process raw files. Might as well try to find the best, right?

I have access to Adobe's free DNG Converter, Canon's Digital Photo Professional, CaptureOne 6, and Lightroom 5. Which of these would provide the best image quality? Is there something better? Does it make enough difference to really care?


----------



## bholliman (Jul 15, 2013)

I use LR4.4 and it does a great job! I'll probably upgrade to LR5 at some point this year, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

I've tried Canon DPP and Adobe's DNG converter and prefer LR. I have no experience with Capture One.


----------



## marsfoto (Jul 15, 2013)

Try LR4 or DPP, LR4 works great in terms of RAW processing as well as content management.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 15, 2013)

Since you have Lightroom 5, I'd use it. The RAW converter is the same as LR 4 (process 2012) which is also the same as The current Photoshop version. Definitely, do not go and buy Lightroom 4, it will not be updated in the future now that LR 5 is out.

As to which is best, its a matter of opinion, and there is not a great deal of difference between them.


----------



## Cb33 (Jul 15, 2013)

Great, thanks for the advice. 

I won't have Lightroom for another week or so (it's in the mail). I plan to try them all out for myself as well as taking your advice. 

So far, I would say DPP is a no. I know I said that IQ was the most important, but I just am not liking that software. The controls are not fine enough (i.e.: Contrast has only nine options -4 through 4). It would have to absolutely blow away the other. It is not. 

Adobe DNG Converter was pretty much out from the start unless Adobe's updated raw converter in Lightroom 5 is somehow worse than in CS5. I find that extraordinarily unlikely.


----------



## SwissBear (Jul 15, 2013)

from a technical point of view, i'd say all programs are about the same. some do this adjustment better, some another.
But i think three things more import than the actual output on a single file:

Workflow
Organizing content
user interface
I can only talk about DPP and Lightroom, and DPP looses three times in these points. The only up it gets is that the raws directly from camera look about the same as the JPEG, to achieve the same in lightroom, some setup would be needed, but i'm kinda lazy to do it, as the interface&workflow are so nice.
I think the lightroom interface is a bit more intuitive than the adobe raw converter found in CS/Elements.
I'm a huge fan of lightroom, but before 5.1 is released, I'll stay with 4.x.


----------



## Cb33 (Jul 15, 2013)

SwissBear said:


> from a technical point of view, i'd say all programs are about the same. some do this adjustment better, some another.
> But i think three things more import than the actual output on a single file:
> 
> Workflow
> ...



I don't own LR4, so it's LR5 or no Lightroom for me. As long as I'm not in danger of losing files, I would probably just live with a few bugs without too much worry. Is there something horribly wrong with LR5 or is it just general a general distrust of version x.0 software?


----------



## scott_m (Jul 16, 2013)

I can understand that some folks can't live with the limitations of DPP (for myself I cannot fathom why ProPhotoRGB is not available) but it does have one *spectacular* feature - the Digital Lens Optimizer. This tool allows correcting lens aberrations separately from distortion (hooray!) and if you haven't tried it I suggest you do - the results with some lenses (like the 15-85IS) are little short of amazing. Some lenses e.g. the 135L do not have a profile (not much to fix there!) but for zooms and wides especially it works wonders. I use DPP exclusively with Canon RAW files then transfer them to PS for further editing.

Regards,
Scott


----------



## Zv (Jul 16, 2013)

I don't know about the other programs but for me LR has always worked nicely. The 2012 process version does a great job and LR controls are easy to use, makes editing and exporting super quick. I also have PS but that only gets used sometimes for it's masking ability. Most stuff can be done with LR. I wish Adobe would include a better healing brush tool in LR though. 

Interesting about the Digital Lens Optimizer in DPP. How does that differ from the Lens correction profile in LR? LR 4 has distortion and CA separate.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2013)

scott_m said:


> I can understand that some folks can't live with the limitations of DPP (for myself I cannot fathom why ProPhotoRGB is not available) but it does have one *spectacular* feature - the Digital Lens Optimizer. This tool allows correcting lens aberrations separately from distortion (hooray!) and if you haven't tried it I suggest you do - the results with some lenses (like the 15-85IS) are little short of amazing. Some lenses e.g. the 135L do not have a profile (not much to fix there!) but for zooms and wides especially it works wonders. I use DPP exclusively with Canon RAW files then transfer them to PS for further editing.
> 
> Regards,
> Scott



Lighroom allows corrections to lens aberrations separately from distortion. And Adobe give you a free lens profiling tool to accurately profile any and every lens you own at any aperture or focal length for zooms, if that is your thing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 16, 2013)

Zv said:


> I don't know about the other programs but for me LR has always worked nicely. The 2012 process version does a great job and LR controls are easy to use, makes editing and exporting super quick. I also have PS but that only gets used sometimes for it's masking ability. Most stuff can be done with LR. I wish Adobe would include a better healing brush tool in LR though.
> 
> Interesting about the Digital Lens Optimizer in DPP. How does that differ from the Lens correction profile in LR? LR 4 has distortion and CA separate.


I upgraded to LR5 the first day (after using the beta). There are some bugs, but they are not important to me, since I do not sharpen my output.

You are in no danger of losing your images. Lightroom works with a database which records the edits. When you export a file, it applies the edits to a copy and exports that without ever touching the original.

There are a few Adobe haters who make up things or distort them out of reason. To be fair, there are some who are just the opposite. A lot of us are quite unhappy with Adobe and the so called Creative Cloud, but that's no excuse for grossly exaggerating any small issues.

The way I see it, is that its a software tool, and like all software, it has bugs which will eventually be fixed, and the fixes will cause more bugs. They are usually very minor and easily avoided, but it is definitely a good idea to understand how they apply to you and your work.


----------



## Zv (Jul 16, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about the other programs but for me LR has always worked nicely. The 2012 process version does a great job and LR controls are easy to use, makes editing and exporting super quick. I also have PS but that only gets used sometimes for it's masking ability. Most stuff can be done with LR. I wish Adobe would include a better healing brush tool in LR though.
> ...



Ummm OK! All I said was I wanted a better spot healing tool! I love LR! Was this for OPs benefit? ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2013)

I use DxO Optics Pro. They have modules for the M two EF-M lenses (22 and 18-55) but none with EF or EF-S lenses, yet.


----------

