Lightroom 3.6/Canon 5D Mark III

<p>I just bought a Canon 5d Mark III, I have been using a Canon 7D in the past. I put my memory card in a reader and loaded the Raw images in a folder went to Lightroom to import them like I always do and it came up this message<br>

Some import operations were not performed.<br>

These files are from a camera which is not recognized by the raw format support in Lightroom.<br>

Please check for updates, which I did and there is none.<br>

My lightroom is 3.6. So does anybody know if I buy Lightroom 5 upgrade if that will make it compatible with my new Canon 5D or if it is another problem.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

Don't know if there will be any other problems but LR 5 supports a 5D Mark III.

<p>yes, it will and there are other reasons to bump up to LR5 (although 6 is probably 6 months away or so). Adobe doesn't back-update old versions of PS or LR to handle raw of newer cameras. Gotta keep up. That said, you could download the Adobe DNG converter and run the images through that and then import those DNG. That will work w/o updating to LR5</p>

<p>You can use the software that came with your Canon 5DIII to convert from RAW format to some "non-lossy" format that can be read by your older Lightroom.</p>

<p>This 'push' for you to get a new version of Adobe software each time any camera format changes is one of my least favorite aspects of Adobe company culture.<br>

[This is the cue for the "Adobees" to chime in to point out that you don't HAVE to buy new software, etc. etc.]</p>

<p>I will stipulate, as I have already said, that there are work-arounds, no matter how awkward and unfriendly they might be.</p>

<p>The underlying story is that Canon and other manufacturers often change their raw file formats when they introduces new cameras, and Adobe has to rewrite its code to enable its software to read the new files. If you look at the minor releases (new number to the right of the decimal point), you will see that a major reason for these updates is that they will support newly released cameras. So, at some point you either have to do what JDM suggests, and convert to a different file format, or update your software.</p>

<p>Unlike JDM, I don't find this inappropriate, even though I would like not to spend the money. Someone has to pay the people doing all of the new coding, testing, and revising of code. Once you buy a major upgrade, Adobe provides this service without charge until the next major release, but they charge a good bit for the major upgrades.</p>

<p>In your case, I would say that you should upgrade anyway. LR 3 is not remotely as capable as LR 5. You have paid a lot for a superb camera (I have a 5D3 also), and LR 5 will allow you to get a lot more out of that camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>LR 3 is not remotely as capable as LR 5</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is true. Just as important is that the RAW converter was significantly improved with PV2012, which appeared in LR4. It's a significant enough improvement that I routinely change the PV on older files when working on them in LR. In addition to providing better RAW conversion out of the gate, there are additional sliders that allow more control.</p>

<p>I have mixed feelings about it. There's nothing groundbreaking that I can do in 5.x that I can't do in 3.x - lots of small improvements but nothing like 'oh I gotta have it!' - however I also rely less on the software than a lot of folks. For those, 5.x (5, or 6 now?) is a no-brainer, and most definitely worth it (for some reason or another ;) ). </p>

<p>Personally, when I upgraded to 5 on my latest laptop (ran out of 3.6 licenses :( ) over the summer, I just did the $9.99/mo since it got me current PS too (and my PS was woefully out of date!), While I <em>really</em> hate that I don't own a license, it is <em>extremely</em> cost effective - and well supported - and current.</p>

<p>As I mentioned above, PV2012 is a significant advancement as a raw converter, whether or not one wants the other improvements.</p>

<p>Jeff, I'm sure you are absolutely correct. Perhaps you can describe specifically <em>how</em> PV2012 "significantly improves" the RAW converter? Maybe <em>what</em> makes it such a "significant advancement"?</p>

<p>Like I said, I'm sure you're right, but am curious about what the<em> tangible</em> differences are... you know, things I'd see when I'm editing photos ;-) Certainly the same images didn't<em> seem</em> appreciably different to me when processed thru LR 3.x vs LR 5.x, except when I have to use a crapload of NR or something like that ... But of course I don't sit in a lab and analyze things like this, so who knows what I'm missing out on?</p>

<p>Tone mapping algorithms are improved. There is more shadow detail and less highlight clipping. The sliders offer far more control. This last part alone was worth at least the cost of the upgrade. The only downside I've seen is that images that were processed with PV2010 or PV2003 don't look that good when converted to PV2012, it seems easier to get better results by starting over in PV2012.</p>

<p>Lightroom isn't expensive, unlike some other Adobe Software, and you can buy it as a one-off. Given there's some improvements and Adobe have to do some work to keep up with camera manufacturers changing things, this isn't a big issue for me. I mean if I'm persuaded to pay out £2300 for a Mkiii body when I already have a Mkii, for a modest improvement in IQ, then I think 5% of that for a newer, better LR that will deal with my new images shouldn't be too much of a grumble. It cost me more than that to buy a new RRS L plate for the Mkiii.</p>

<p>Incidentally like Jeff I'm converting older images to the 2012 processing model whenever I open them in LR. They look better- and I do find that they look a bit brighter and more contrasty so I have to do less work in PS and can quite often use the file right out of LR. Historically I've never felt able to do that. And I do think I can get more done in LR5- make bigger changes when I need to- than I could previously achieve without running out of histogram.</p>