Canon EOS 5d MkII and Adobe RAW support

leinsterman

I got my new camera only to find that there is no RAW support in Lightroom 2.1 ... and you have to upgrade photoshop to CS4.

Does anyone know anything about this ?

Is there a fix for Lightroom to allow RAW support on the 5D mkII ???

I can't find anything useful on the Adobe site ... Camera RAW 5.1 supports the MkII but I don't think Lightroom uses this file ... which is a bit idiotic in my opinion ...

I saw some online discussions elsewhere saying Adobe could not add support until the camera started shipping ... but that make no sense whatsoever, when you consider they have support in CS4 ...

One thing is for sure ... this camera produces BIG files ... I have a 32MB RAW file!! ... I may end up flipping it to sRAW1 + Jpeg a lot ... I'm not sure you really need such realestate for general purpose shooting ... This pixel thing is a bit of a consumer driven pain ... I'd prefer to see less pixels with bigger pixel site size to increase light storage capacity over noise and therefore improve performance at high ISO even further ... not that having the option is not a bad thing ... I still love my new camera.

latchiko

Lightroom 2.2 (which is due this month) will offer 5D MkII support - more info here.

DotOrg

do a search on adobe.com for their raw to dng convertor. then you can still open them as raw files in CS3

PaulieC

DNG

Similar thing for the new 50D. No RAW support for Lightroom 1.x so I've had to upgrade to LR2.0. It's not nice to have to upgrade everything just coz you get a new body...
I was converting to TIFF in canon's DPP but LR just doesn't process TIF or JPG the same as RAW - everything looks too bright and garish...

Morrisseeee

Does the camera have 'In camera editing', ie. turn your RAW files to JPEGs (various size) and at least then you would have JPEGs to look at or publish or upload or print etc, note: not ideal if you need to do further processing !

leinsterman

DNG

latchiko wrote: »

Lightroom 2.2 (which is due this month) will offer 5D MkII support - more info here.

Thanks ... that is exactly what I wanted t hear ...


I shoot mostly RAW & JPEGs ... but given the size of the RAW files form the 5dMkII I am seriously considering using sRAW & JPEG unless I really think it is going to be something of a special shot ... of course this does not help for those opportunities that present themselves suddenly ... but that is fair enough I suppose ...

leinsterman

DNG

cambo_gueno wrote: »

Similar thing for the new 50D. No RAW support for Lightroom 1.x so I've had to upgrade to LR2.0. It's not nice to have to upgrade everything just coz you get a new body...
I was converting to TIFF in canon's DPP but LR just doesn't process TIF or JPG the same as RAW - everything looks too bright and garish...

I was pretty impressed with the new DPP ... what do you think of it?

PaulieC

DNG

leinsterman wrote: »

I was pretty impressed with the new DPP ... what do you think of it?

I don't like it, chiefly because everything looks very pixelated at 100%. In fact, after getting my 50D and doing a few test shots, I opened them up in DPP and almost shat myself when I saw them at 100% .

I much prefer using Lightroom

leinsterman

DNG

cambo_gueno wrote: »

I don't like it, chiefly because everything looks very pixelated at 100%. In fact, after getting my 50D and doing a few test shots, I opened them up in DPP and almost shat myself when I saw them at 100% .

I much prefer using Lightroom

I agree on the lightroom thing ... but in the absence of any support for my camera body I don't have too much other options except CS4 ...

I never noticed the effect you describe above ... I'll give it a go and report back ...

Valentia

DNG

I haven't used the new DPP but have always found it very capable but cumbersome so didn't use it much.

Simon, as DotOrg says, change the RAWs to DNG and they will work with CS3. It is probably a good practice anyway though time consuming.

The other thing is that the new Camera Raw does some amazing things. I think the Graduated filter on a RAW file is one of the most exciting developments ever. Imagine being able to use a Grad and actually change the exposure underneath, It's exactly the same as using it on camera.

leinsterman

DNG

Valentia wrote: »

I haven't used the new DPP but have always found it very capable but cumbersome so didn't use it much.

Simon, as DotOrg says, change the RAWs to DNG and they will work with CS3. It is probably a good practice anyway though time consuming.

The other thing is that the new Camera Raw does some amazing things. I think the Graduated filter on a RAW file is one of the most exciting developments ever. Imagine being able to use a Grad and actually change the exposure underneath, It's exactly the same as using it on camera.

Yeah ... I can wait a few weeks for full support in Lightroom 2.2 ... I have a trip to Morocco coming up ... and as a result will have a lot of images to process after ... I'd hate to have to convert them to DNG ... even if there is a batch tool ... though is there any degradation in converting ?

... on the reference to the Camera RAW ... to what are you referring ? Is this the new V5.2 from Adobe or the Canon RAW download ? ... I like the Grad tool in Lightroom 2.1 ... I just discovered it today processing a JPEG from the new body ... it is very powerful ... even without using RAW.

mikeanywhere

leinsterman wrote: »

Yeah ... I can wait a few weeks for full support in Lightroom 2.2 ... I have a trip to Morocco coming up ... and as a result will have a lot of images to process after ...

Is that after you have finished the Africa stuff?? :P

leinsterman

DNG

Actually ... can someone out there enlighten me on the pros & cons of the argument for working with DNG v Canon RAW?

Valentia

DNG

Don't know anything about the download. V5 is what I mean. Using the grad on a jpeg is a complete waste. Exactly the same as the grad that was always in PS. The difference (BIG difference) with using it with RAW is you can bring back actual detail in a sky. Like using a real grad filter. Absolutely amazing to my simple mind anyway :mad:

As for DNG and Canon RAW. No difference except that DNG probably has a longer archival life expectancy.

leinsterman

DNG

Valentia wrote: »

As for DNG and Canon RAW. No difference except that DNG probably has a longer archival life expectancy.

So who is using what ?

... actually I'll add a poll ... I'm curious

Valentia

DNG

leinsterman wrote: »

So who is using what ?

... actually I'll add a poll ... I'm curious

Waste of time I'd say. Very few bother converting I'd imagine. Too much hassle.

Now whist and post a low light shot for Covey (and myself)............

Valentia

DNG

Oh yeah, just remembered something else about DNG. I think you can store info like xml or something in the DNG file itself too. If that means something to somebody. Like Lightroom corrections without having a separate file..........

I'm not too good on the technical stuff.

leinsterman

DNG

Valentia wrote: »

Waste of time I'd say. Very few bother converting I'd imagine. Too much hassle.

Now whist and post a low light shot for Covey (and myself)............

Give me 10 minutes ... its on its way ...

leinsterman

DNG

OK here you go - focal point in all case was the letter A in Air - Full crops available on my flickr ... lens used was a 24-105 F4L at F4

ISO 3200 -


ISO 6400 -


ISO 12,800 -



ISO 25,600 -

Ricky91t

WOW
25,600 looks like 3,200 on my 20D
Just shows how much the image processors have changed
Thanks for posting

AnimalRights

DNG

I use Canons own DPP raw most of the time, if I want to attempt to be creative I use LR.

Carrigman

DNG

Interesting thread on DPReview comparing the 5D and the 5D2:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=30198389&page=1

Seems the difference in IQ isn't *that* noticeable after all.

Simon, any chance you could photograph the planes with the 5D as well so that we can compare and contrast?

Valentia

DNG

My broadband (7.6 Mb BT) is so slow I expect to see the full size ones about lunch time tomorrow.

leinsterman

DNG

Carrigman wrote: »

Simon, any chance you could photograph the planes with the 5D as well so that we can compare and contrast?

I only ever had a 5D on loan from Canon while I was shooting in Africa ... I never actually owned one ...

So your request would involve inviting Fajitas! over with his camera ... which, by a strange coincidence, is actually happening tomorrow ... so you'll have to wait

leinsterman

DNG

Bear in mind that the 5D MkII has smaller pixels than than the 5D ... so in theory the 5D should be better noise performance wise for a given ISO ... (Noise affect is directly proportional to sensor pixel site size) ...

The sensor in the MkII is a completely new sensor based on the one in the 1Ds MKIII I understand ... so the remarkable thing is that the MkII has the same if not slightly improved noise performance as the 5D ... and yet much more pixels ...

Personally I'd like to have seen the same number of pixels as the 5D with the reengineered sensor ... but the whole pixel race thing has played a role in Canon's product decisions I'm guessing ... they probably felt they had no choice as people still think more pixels = better camera ... which above about 6MPix is only true if you print very large prints ...

AnimalRights

DNG

Carrigman wrote: »

Interesting thread on DPReview comparing the 5D and the 5D2:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=30198389&page=1

Seems the difference in IQ isn't *that* noticeable after all.

The thread I read over there basically said if you use so so lens the diff isn't that noticeable but with top end lenses it is.

Carrigman

DNG

To my untrained eye I couldn't detect any difference in IQ between the jpegs at 100 ISO (on the dpreview thread). Mind you, I wasn't expecting any dramatic difference. You do of course have the extra size image from the 5D2 to play around with which can be very useful for cropping.

By the way, am I right in thinking that the extra image size of the 5D2 in comparison to the 5D is just an increase of 6.5%? The size of the 5D2 image is 5616x3743 = 21020688 pixels. The 5D size is 4368x2912 = 12719616. Difference: 8301072 pixels which is 6.5% of the 5D dimensions. Maths aren't my strong point so I may have made some elementary error.

nilhg

Other

Carrigman wrote: »

To my untrained eye I couldn't detect any difference in IQ between the jpegs at 100 ISO (on the dpreview thread). Mind you, I wasn't expecting any dramatic difference. You do of course have the extra size image from the 5D2 to play around with which can be very useful for cropping.

By the way, am I right in thinking that the extra image size of the 5D2 in comparison to the 5D is just an increase of 6.5%? The size of the 5D2 image is 5616x3743 = 21020688 pixels. The 5D size is 4368x2912 = 12719616. Difference: 8301072 pixels which is 6.5% of the 5D dimensions. Maths aren't my strong point so I may have made some elementary error.

In linear terms the images are 28% bigger (5616/4368=1.28 approx)
In area terms the difference is 65% (21020688/12719616=1.65 approx)

nilhg

Other

As to the OP's question about DNG v CRW/NEF/ORF this is an old article that explains it reasonably well.

Thoie

DNG

Have you considered ufRaw as a stopgap for the few weeks?

leinsterman

DNG

Thoie wrote: »

Have you considered ufRaw as a stopgap for the few weeks?

Not familiar with ufRAW ... will have to google it ...