@ Arianne:

DPP 3 is now available on the Canon USA site - I'd post a direct link but the site uses a menu system.

@ IOS1600:

I use RSE and/or DPP and I must say that I really like RS - for me they complement each other in the sense that for some shots, DPP is the one, while for others, it's RS, if that makes sense.

I've been using RSE for pretty much 99% of my shots the past 4 months, partly because of my crappy Dell laptop, and partly because it's just fast. I do really like the results i get from it, but i think i can get better (with the added options) from LR once my new computer is up and running.

I have got to say that since this thread started, I have been experimentinig/revisiting C1 again. I have also tested the new DPP 3 and it is much improved. I'm seeing detail out of C1 which ALL the others are missing. Not only that but on some very small diagonal lines, C1 renders a straight line whereas the others have some stair stepping. I feel certain that C1 must be doing some extra sharpening and noise stuff even with those turned off. Whatever its doing, its doing it well. Its just too bad that the interface is not more like Adobe LightRoom. Curious to see what the next version looks like but for strict image quality, C1 does appear to be top dog.

Oh for one super RAW converter that combines the best bits of all the current ones....

Can't agree on that!
C1 hast the least contrast in it's default settings. This is actually what helps it.
Since I was never relly happy with any of my raw converters, but make my living beeing a photographer (stock and assignement photography), I thought it's time to do a larger test of a bunch of processors (C1, Photoshop CS2, DxO, Lightroom, Bibble, DPP) and some tools to go with it (Blow Up, Genuine Fractals, Lens Fix).
The first results really blew my imagination.
There is an incredible difference in sharpness and some images are much cleaner than others.
I will put a webpage together with the results as soon as I am done testing so you can all have a look and be surprised!
Don't spend too much money on new tools, most of them don't deliver what they promisse!

That sounds promising, Chris . . . though my experience much matches Tariq's: C1 seems to winkle more out of a RAW file than anything else I've seen up to the end of last year. Would love to see a 2007 update!

I use C1 90 percent of the time, and the much improved DPP about 10 percent of the time (it's really a LOT better than it used to be though).

I've found that for macro/closeup images, and images that don't require a large dynamic range, DPP can really pull out that micro detail. I know what Shirozina means.

On the other hand, I can't live without C1. The detail, the color, the seemingly extended dynamic range that it provides for my files, is incredible compared to everything else I've tried. I always, always, always go back to C1. I wonder what they'll do with version 4.

Also, there are files that would've been fine in DPP, but then they exhibit the stair stepping, and I'm off to process in C1, and everything is fine.

DPP has a nice grain structure though, and I like the color noise reduction (they finally included it in the later versions), and you can also remove color noise from JPGs and TIFFs, so no need for an extra noise reduction program.

I suppose it's best that we all have at least 2 RAW converters to work with, but that's the beauty of RAW. We can convert our files over and over again with a million programs without screwing anything up.

Hi, all
I have try many raw converters and like you to see my test.
Please follow this link http://photomann.multiply.com/journal/item/59.

boonwed

That's a useful comparison – and a difficult one to make: equalising out the base settings in any meaningful way is almost impossible. Silky Pix looks attractive, but Lightroom and Aperture were handicapped by not being exposure corrected . . .