Can't use RAW with new Canon and "old" Mac

<p>I suppose this question could go into several categories, so please excuse me if this is not the best place for it. Here is my problem. I am using an Apple Powerbook G4 with OSx 10.5. This is a pre Intel computer. I just purchased a new Canon SL1 DSLR (the new very small camera). I have a Canon 5D MkII but rarely take it with me due to the size / weight / and replacement cost if the worse should happen. So I got the tiny SL1 as a carry around camera, and I like it very much, however, the RAW conversion software is for Intel based Macs only, OSx version 10.6 and later. No, I cannot install the later OSx operating system because it likewise requires Intel processor. My version of Canon Digital Photo Professional that came with the 5D MkII will not read the new Canon SL1 RAW files. I am likewise limited to Photoshop versions, so cannot use any updates to PS that support the SL1. I have searched all over the internet trying to find third party RAW converters that will work, but am having no luck. It is always the same Catch 22. If any software works with a non Intel Mac, it will not support the new camera, and any software that is up to date enough to support the new camera will not run on a non Intel Mac. </p>

<p>So my question is if anyone knows of any software that has not abandoned the pre Intel Macs but is up to date with current camera RAW formats? It is looking more and more like I will just have to accept shooting Jpeg with the new camera, and I can live with that, but it is certainly not my first choice. I have been shooting RAW since I got my first DSLR in 2002, so shooting Jpeg seems a major step backwards to me. I suppose the only answer is a new computer, as all software and operating systems are passing me by. This is just such a marvelous laptop and even if I get a new Apple, I will still have to keep this one as a dedicated computer for my Nikon 9000 film scanner, as it certainly does not work with any new computer from either Apple or Windows. </p>

<p>This kind of thing is the number one gripe I have against digital. When you bought a film camera in the past, it was fully useful until it literally fell apart. But digital products become obsolete and un-usable as technology "advances" past what you currently own. </p>

<p>Even Apple has stopped support for my system, so I suppose the writing is on the wall for a new 'puter. But I would love to put it off a while if there is any software out there that combines working with my "obsolete" system and also supports the latest and greatest cameras. </p>

<p>Thanks for reading and any replies.</p>

<p>Steve Parrott</p>

<p>There are several third-party RAW converters that will open your RAW files and save them as DNG files that will open just fine in your old software.<br>

Complaining about being "left behind" doesn't go anywhere. Your old camera still works just fine, it's the new one that won't work with your admittedly obsolete computer. Can't have it both ways.<br>

<Chas><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are several third-party RAW converters that will open your RAW files and save them as DNG files that will open just fine in your old software.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, I think Steve is actually looking for the name of one of these converters, not just being scolded for complaining.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Adobe DNG Converter. is the one to use! FREE.! I hope it works for you.<br>

For the Mac version download- http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5568<br>

The SL1 is listed in the cameras that are compatible.<br>

Put your Canon RAW images in a folder, Run the DNG converter, you will have DNG 'RAW' files that will open in many versions of Photoshop (I can open DNGs in PS-Elements v6 )</p>

<p>Adobe DNG Converter works well, and "free" is hard to beat. There is also a new RAW converter available from Picture Code called Photo Ninja, which is definitely <em>not</em> free but might be worth taking a look at with the free trial version. I don't know anything about it yet, but I'm tempted...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.picturecode.com/index.php">http://www.picturecode.com/index.php</a></p>

<p>I still run one PowerPC computer to control a SCSI scanner, but you may want to consider something newer for newer stuff, like new cameras.</p>

<p>Rosetta ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_%28software%29 ) was supported by Apple for quite a while, but it has dropped out at with OS X Lion (10.7) , so....</p>

<p>I find that the last completely reliable version of Photoshop to use on my old OS X 10.5 PPC machine is version 7, so you're missing a lot of good stuff that came later there too.</p>

<p>[[Adobe DNG Converter. is the one to use! FREE.! I hope it works for you.]]<br>

<br>

Adobe DNG converter that supports RAW files from the SL1 does not run under OS X 10.5. It says, right at the bottom of the page: 10.6-10.8 support. </p>

<p>Photo Ninja too will only run under 10.6.8 (64-bit) and above, as written in the FAQ. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>SL1 does not run under OS X 10.5</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep. sorry guys, must read more- keep looking.</p>

<p>Oops. Well, looks like it may be time for an upgrade....maybe to a Windows 7/8 machine? ;-)</p>

<p>I realize it is an expense, and never fun to be forced into a purchase, but you can pick up used Mac's with Intel processors for very little money. Your time is worth something. Rather than spending it on Google, buy a new-to-you Intel Mac and be productive again! :)</p>

<p>The SL-1 is a relatively new DSLR, not all RAW converters support it at the moment but this may change. DCRAW and Picasa seem to offer OS-X 10.5 support but no LS-1 yet. I'd wait a few months to see if SL-1 support is added, or contact the manufacturers.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the responses, and for the suggestions. As has already been pointed out, however, the software suggestions are only supporting the Intel Macs. A used Intel machine is an idea, might be worth investigating. Yes, it is aggravating being forced to spend more money simply in order to use a new device at it's best capabilities. Such is "progress" I suppose. In time, there are going to be many other things, such as websites, that will not function with an obsolete operating system, so the new camera alone is not going to be the only thing that forces me to make some changes. </p>

<p>On a related note, Windows will stop supporting XP in April 2014. My wife is still using XP, but when all support is gone, she will eventually also have to make a change. At least she may be able to just install a new op sys instead of buying a new computer.</p>

<p>I love my Apple, and will always use them, but I feel Apple really kicked us users in the teeth when they went to the Intel processor machines and basically obsoleted all earlier Macs overnight. The sad thing is that a pre intel Mac is a wonderful computer, .... it is just no longer supported by anything. Oh well....</p>

<p>This issue underscores that the digital camera is only half of a digital photography system. Just as with film -- you still need the "darkroom" side of the equation. Here on PN we seem to focus a lot of attention on the capture side and very little on the processing side. Maybe we should devote more time to CPUs, OSs, applications, etc. I have more money tied up in my computers and software than I do in cameras and lenses. Upgrading your capture hardware without understanding how the software/processing side of the operation accommodates it is not a complete thought. We discuss whether or not a particular lens is well suited to a new camera, but give little thought to what we will do to the image captured on the sensor. What happens to the ones and zeros from that point forward is equally important -- at least in my view.</p>

<p>Virginia, to extend what you are saying, the real change from film to digital photography is not the photography but the required computer skills. I had used photoshop for several years before entering the digital photography age so for me I felt it was easy. However, I have introduced several friends and family to digital photography and it is a monster. Teaching them how to handle digital photographs on the computer is the hard part, from simply resizing images to send in emails to very advanced photoshop and lightroom techniques. Some are just not interested but still want to take pictures. I guess for those people, phones are the answer.</p>

<p>Sadly, time for an upgrade. I had this same issue with LR4, when I discovered that its performance as a 32-bit application was absolutely tragic. Had to move to a 64-bit OS. Fortunately, I'm happy with Windoze 8.</p>

<p>Phil, I think you have hit upon the difference between snapshots and photographs...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Teaching them how to handle digital photographs on the computer is the hard part</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My father learned to use Picasa in his 80s. It's not that hard with simple software.</p>

<p>Great replies from everyone. Just to be clear, this issue is not something that took me by surprise. It was fully in my mind before I ever purchased the camera, simply because nothing else works with the early Macs. I was hoping however, that just by luck it would not be a problem. But I knew if all else fails I could still shoot Jpeg, so that is what I will do for the time being. I did check the Apple site and they have some pretty good buys on like new, guaranteed iMacs with 27 inch screen. A huge step up from what I am using now, so in the long run, Canon may have done me a favor by forcing me to get my computer up to the standards of this decade! Now all I have to do is get about an extra $1500 together, and maybe I will be set for another 10 years.</p>

<p>On one last note, WHY do cameras from the same manufacturer have different RAW files. It seems Canon RAW would be Canon RAW, regardless of the camera. That would solve so many problems. I just don't see why the format is the same.... but different .... for each camera? Why does each and every camera, even from the same maker, have to be "supported" as a new entity. Jpeg is an across the board standard, ... why not RAW, ... at least within each brand?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On one last note, WHY do cameras from the same manufacturer have different RAW files. It seems Canon RAW would be Canon RAW, regardless of the camera. That would solve so many problems. I just don't see why the format is the same.... but different .... for each camera? Why does each and every camera, even from the same maker, have to be "supported" as a new entity. Jpeg is an across the board standard, ... why not RAW, ... at least within each brand?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mostly because each new generation of camera adds new data to the RAW file that wasn't in the last version. Software designers/engineers don't know today what is going to be required next year, or five years hence, thus the incompatibility. It's the same in many industries, forward compatibility is not a common feature in any software.<br>

<Chas><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>On one last note, WHY do cameras from the same manufacturer have different RAW files.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually there is no reason they have to do this. Nearly every raw file is based on TIFF, the differences are tiny and there's no technical reason why each new camera couldn’t provide a file like the last, or an open raw format. The camera companies feel it is to their benefit to produce proprietary file formats. They can obviously read the data in their raw converters and they could provide an SDK or information to outside software vendors in anticipation of a new camera. But they don't because why help those outside their company? They forget they are in the hardware business, selling cameras. They think we desire their software which is rarely the case.<br>

You noticed that JPEG isn't an issue but raw is. There is absolutely no technical reason this has to be, it's political. </p>

<p>You make excellent points Charles, but I have to go along with Andrew. I think the whole proprietary RAW format thing from camera to camera is just not justified. I base that feeling on Jpeg. Surely there are many changes in a Jpeg file from a camera made in 1999 to one made today, and yet any Jpeg photo is readable and usable from past to present, in any software, old or new, on any computer, old or new. I can't help but feel the general pubic is being suckered by the manufacturers by this proprietary RAW format with each new camera. It simply seems senseless to me and just another way to dupe people out of more money. At least Adobe seemed to want to make an effort to standardize RAW, but it obviously has not gained much acceptance. All the camera manufacturers remind me of little kids playing, .... either we play what *I* want to play or I will take my ball and go home. We did not have to build an entire new darkroom every time we bought a different film camera, so why do we just accept that we have to buy new, or "update", software and computers with new digital cameras? Why can't technology be "forward thinking" instead of based on planned obsolescence?</p>

Charles nailed it. Otherwise you're suggesting I

should/could travel back in time with my D4 files and

open them in CS3 but I can't due to manufacturers

intention for some sort of... conspiracy

Google+ and Nik just updated their raw converter. Free

but works in browser.

https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13uu3uwa

svcyf01f22phjbrrmi5ylnj204

<p>Thanks Eric, ... I will take a look at it.</p>