Why do you use CaptureOne DSLR?

[Jesper]

Finally, after five weeks of waiting I got my 10D last Saturday!

Ofcourse I want to get the best image quality out of it so I'm shooting RAW. I've already read a lot of posts on various forums about RAW conversion software and many people seem to agree that the Canon File Viewer Utility is not so great, and also a lot of people seem to like CaptureOne DSLR (LE), so I've downloaded and installed the trial version (of C1 DSLR LE). So far it looks like a good piece of software with good control over the RAW conversion process.

I'd like to know from other RAW shooters what your main reasons are to use C1 DSLR instead of Canon FVU. If you can show examples of the difference in quality between the two, that would be nice.

I'm not yet convinced that the difference between Canon FVU + editing in PSE 2.0 and C1 DSLR LE is worth the € 99....

[slejhamer]

Jesper wrote:
I'd like to know from other RAW shooters what your main reasons are to use C1 DSLR instead of Canon FVU. If you can show examples of the difference in quality between the two, that would be nice.


I'm not sure there is much difference in output "quality."

The advantage of C1 is its speed, primarily because it works with a small preview file and changes are visible almost immediately. With FVU the image is completely redrawn at full resolution, which I find very slow. Personally I find C1's format very intuitive and easy to work with, though others say it is complex.

For one-off conversions FVU is entirely acceptable (or try BreezeBrowser which incorporates FVU but also has a good noise reduction feature.)

But if you are doing a few hundred edits and conversions at a time you might find C1 fits better with your workflow. I've been working with the different classes at a martial arts school and getting a couple hundred shots per class; C1 really cuts down my processing time. And other than special effects, I have very little need for Photoshop anymore.

The primary disadvantage with C1 so far has been sub-par generic camera profiles for the 10D. There are now 3rd-party profiles available, some free and some at a price, but it seems to me that PhaseOne should have done a better job developing 10D profiles for use with C1. To their credit, they are responsive to customer inquiries (via Michael Tapes' support forum) and seem to be working on product improvements.

As with any other software, your mileage may vary.

Cheers,

[Jesper]

Thanks for the info.

I've found this website where David Coffin's dcraw is compared with Canon FVU: http://www.insflug.org/raw/ - according to that comparison, the difference is readily noticeable; dcraw gets more detail out of the RAW file than Canon FVU.

There's also a link to a dcraw vs C1 comparison on that website, but unfortunately the test isn't there yet ("Coming Soon"....).

I still wonder if the Canon FVU conversion is really that bad and how C1 compares to it...

[tarves57]

Capture DSLR is much faster and you get great results. I can't say if the Canon software is any better because after trying it once or twice and having to wait for ages, after that I would automatically click on C1. You get hooked on the speed and ease really.

Susan

[Tategoi]

C1 uses extremly clever algorythms specifically for your camera whereas other RAW converters use general ones. The difference is huge and C1 is worth every penny. Also the back up is terrific, how many companies do you know will answer the phone straight away and bend over backwards to help you. They don't offer telephone support but are more than willing to assist, they have great pride in their products.

Cheaper software is available but if you want the best.......it costs

[Jesper]

Tategoi wrote:
C1 uses extremly clever algorythms specifically for your camera whereas other RAW converters use general ones. ...

In the Canon FVU you can also choose between "generic processing" and processing for a specific model (10D or G3 in my case). So that sounds like it's also using algorithms specific to the camera type.

I'm going to download the RAW files etc. from the test on http://www.insflug.org/raw/ and try to see if C1 does much better than FVU myself....

[marcel wouters]

Jesper wrote:
Tategoi wrote:
C1 uses extremly clever algorythms specifically for your camera whereas other RAW converters use general ones. ...

In the Canon FVU you can also choose between "generic processing" and processing for a specific model (10D or G3 in my case). So that sounds like it's also using algorithms specific to the camera type.

I'm going to download the RAW files etc. from the test on http://www.insflug.org/raw/ and try to see if C1 does much better than FVU myself....



Clever or not this is always an aproximation!
I know only two converter for canon on the market!
The canon SDK converter and the David Coffin converter!
The Canon SDK is so tweaked that it gives the better mean image (at the expense of shadows and highlights compression to give an automatic good contrast). Some software on the market use SDK (like BB) and others uses the DCRAW converter! The DCRAW converter gives you the raw data untweaked but without any ergonomy, this is not a good deal for a pro (as you need a lot of work to edit your pic after conversion) but the better deal for an amateur (freeware and untweaked raw data available for profiling).
Some software like Powershovell (freeware) uses the dcraw converter surrounded with another RGB space conversion and other facilities (either adobe raw uses pieces of dcraw).
I don't know what converter is used by C1 but for shure the brain is not in all these marketed software!
It's like plugin's, time saver scripts!
In fact the need of Pro and Amateurs are very different!

NB I use BB (Canon SDK) to generate jpeg reference images ( FVU is indeed very very slow with raw data) and i dont want to loose my time to generates standard reference jpeg!

[Roger_Cavanagh]

marcel wouters wrote:
I know only two converter for canon on the market!

Neither Capture One DSLR nor Adobe Camera Raw use the Canon SDK or DCRaw.

I don't know what converter is used by C1 but for shure the brain is not in all these marketed software!
It's like plugin's, time saver scripts!
In fact the need of Pro and Amateurs are very different!

True, but there are many pro photographers who find that the C1 workflow suits them admirably. The only pro I know personally uses BB, and you don't have to look very hard to find professional supporters of CR.

Regards,

[psk4363]

First off I can't comment on C1 but having tried Breezebrowser and the new Canon RAW converter in Photoshop CS, my vote has to go with PS CS. It is fast, very informative and, last but not least, incorporated in PS CS which has cost me £459 so I ain't spending any more!

Cheers,
Barry

[picnic]

psk4363 wrote:
First off I can't comment on C1 but having tried Breezebrowser and the new Canon RAW converter in Photoshop CS, my vote has to go with PS CS. It is fast, very informative and, last but not least, incorporated in PS CS which has cost me £459 so I ain't spending any more!

Cheers,
Barry
I can understand that, but found, to my frustration last night, that PSCS RAW strips the EXIF data--I was not a happy camper LOL. I've used BB for years, then I bought the ARC (PS7) plugin last March to use for commercial conversion. However, after trying the C1LE demo in late Spring, I bought it and have used it 99% of the time since. Since that time I added a new profile from Magne for the D60 and that suits me fine--very 'neutral' color. I still use BB for some things, but generally use C1LE for the majority of workflow.

Diane B