I've been using Lightroom to edit raw files from my D3x and MF scans. It does a nice job for these cameras. But, as I now have a 5D2 for back-up, I am curious if DPP is better to use with Canon than Lightroom? Pros and cons would be appreciated. Some colors, from the 5D2, appear more realistically in DPP.
If there have been previous posts on this topic, please provide link.
The topic of LR v. ACR v. DPP has been covered ad nauseum on most of the forums - but I haven't seen a huge amount of traffic on it on LL forum.
Does DPP produce a better looking image than LR?
'Maybee'... at default settings in LR. And really it should. DPP is a dedicated RAW converter for Canon's CR2 files - its a highly specialised tool, tuned for just Canon files.
LR and ACR have to deal with RAW files from multiple vendors - so, yes - in a default comparison it is arguable that the color in a DPP file is 'better (better, being highly subjective) than the default processed file in LR.
You can easily check this for yourself (which I did) Just process the same RAW CR2 file in DPP and LR at default and compare the two. I can see a minute difference, but in my mind its not even worth mentioning, lat alone quibbling over and once I start tweaking the sliders in LR the difference is totally irrelevant.
LR offers so much more adjustment opportunity than DPP that its far easier to get better looking files in LR than DPP. DPP requires round tripping through Photoshop to get equivalent results, working with layers etc.. and a lot more time.
The curve ball to all of this is that if you need a quick output from LR that matches (or gets extremley close) to DPP you can now select one of the canned picture styles in LR - such as neutral, faithful etc. That will give you the same look for all intent and purposes.
Putting that aside for a minute the user interface experience in DPP is atrocious compared to LR. The significant workflow advantages of LR make the whole argument moot IMO.