I downloaded 4.20.30 and it seems faster but when I do a RAW conversion, the system GPU through Activity Monitor shows no use whatsoever. At least it seems to be spreading workload over the multiple CPU efficiency and performance cores evenly.
p.1 #3 · Canon DPP, finally Apple Silicon native?!
Cool! We used to use DPP when shooting fashion when the other converters couldn’t get the colors right.
Why are people now using DPP instead of capture one or Adobe stuff?
p.1 #4 · Canon DPP, finally Apple Silicon native?!
DPP does the job well. I don´t remove twigs, add wingtips or brighten a darkish background ala Jan Wegener. Brightness, some shadows, contrast and lens correction, some noice correction, rarely some colour tweaking, DPP does it well enough. For critical work I tend to use Zeiss glass for close to perfection SOOC. Generally no love for post processing, so no interest in the tools.
p.1 #5 · Canon DPP, finally Apple Silicon native?!
I haven't used it in ages, while it was better with tricky colors, the DPP was always lacking in terms of sharpness and detail, and SLOOOW… maybe I'll give it another try shortly if it's optimized now.
p.1 #6 · Canon DPP, finally Apple Silicon native?!
ronno wrote:
Cool! We used to use DPP when shooting fashion when the other converters couldn’t get the colors right.
Why are people now using DPP instead of capture one or Adobe stuff?
Two reasons for me:
a) It's free. I don't do this for a living, so I don't really want to pay for the whole Adobe suite. I also am in no rush--eg I'm not shooting two weddings a week and need to pump out a thousand images for a waiting bride etc.
b) I think (personal opinion) the RAW conversion and noise reduction quality on DPP is better...but I can't say for sure. I don't have enough comparison. But the output of DPP certainly matches what I "expect"...which admittedly is rooted in 2005 era 6MP DSLR Canon in-camera JPEGs, eg Canon's factory presets.
p.1 #7 · Canon DPP, finally Apple Silicon native?!
I used DPP for RAW conversion back in the day, transferring the resulting TIFF for edits in PS. It was a horrid program in just about every way but, like others have noted, it whipped LR, Aperture and others for tricky colors. Some people like that the default DPP RAW profile automatically adds NR in a similar way to in-camera JPEGS. However, Topaz and LR Classic NR is a lot better, especially if you need to fine tune or customize. LR Classic has improved so much, I rarely need to touch DPP. DPP4 is painfully slow on my fully loaded Mac Studio M4. I downloaded the 6/30 update (DPP4.20.30)and gave it a spin. Still is really slow compared to LR Classic, but is a a notch faster than the prior DPP4. Canon wants you to pay a subscription fee to add advanced processing tools to DPP4. Canon is software not likely to compete well with Adobe, DX0, and others.
Jul 20, 2025 at 12:30 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #8 · Canon DPP, finally Apple Silicon native?!
ronno wrote:
I haven't used it in ages, while it was better with tricky colors, the DPP was always lacking in terms of sharpness and detail, and SLOOOW… maybe I'll give it another try shortly if it's optimize now.
I tested on a photo of lichen on a dead tree, plenty of details, and DPP came out sharper than DxO. And then I realized later how to do USM in DPP 3 I was doing it wrong! But It's pretty easy to lose sharpness on defaults in both DPP 3 and 4.
Wasn't any slower than DxO and open source (2016?), probably faster then since I still used DPP 3, rememberDxO took ~5 minutes per file (!!!) on their top NR a selling point for the processor. DPP 3 is pretty lite, doubt you can use it on newer bodies though. I've certainly seen slowness on DPP 4 but on an older computer, even then not too bad.
p.1 #9 · Canon DPP, finally Apple Silicon native?!
Gochugogi wrote:
Canon is software not likely to compete well with Adobe, DX0, and others.
I agree with you there--they're not a software house and it doesn't seem like they have a product/dev/validation cycle that works like traditional consumer software does. That said, they did develop the firmware in the camera and the sensor hardware, so I've always assumed they knew more about how the files worked than any other organization.
I have an M1 Studio (64GB, 10 compute core) and opening files is much much faster now, but I don't regularly batch files so I can't say the sustained performance is what it should be.
I have a third reason why I like DPP:
c) the sliders have very simple (ordinal?) settings. Eg there isn't a hundred levels of saturation, there are four in each direction. This makes it very easy to adjust an image for people who have simple needs, like me. Amazingly, I often find myself processing a file exactly the same way, years later, because these settings are so discrete.
Oh, I just thought of a fourth:
d) It always gets updated right as a new body is released and keeps backwards compatibility with very old bodies (think CRW format). I don't know if this is really a benefit, come to think of it.
Jul 20, 2025 at 10:01 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #10 · Canon DPP, finally Apple Silicon native?!
I dont really have much interest in Adobe, haven't really used it much, once someone felt compelled to post photos pp'd in DxO vs LR or PS, looked the same, but I didn't like DxO colors that much, yet another reason not too interested.
People expend so much money, time , energy on the best glass and bodies, I can't see expending less effort on raw processors and getting inferior results on color.
p.1 #12 · Canon DPP, finally Apple Silicon native?!
ronno wrote:
Does it do video editing yet, or just stills?
The name of the program is ”Digital Photo Professional 4,” so not a very video-centric moniker. I imagine if Canon ever came out with a video editing program to compete with the likes of Final Cut Pro, Premiere, Resolve, etc., it would be snowing in hell and hearts and tiny bubbles exhausted from the arses of politicians. And, yeah, the design would be as slow and inept as Digital Photo Professional 4 and have a subscription fee to boot...
Hope it´s not too buggy.