I assume "CDPP" is "Canon Digital Photo Pro" RAW converter... (I've seen it called "DPP"... but never seen "CDPP" before now).

Anyway, I've used DPP in the past... But only with high ISO images because the Noise Reduction in it was better than in earlier versions of LR and PS. After dealing with the noise in images, I passed them off (as a TIFF) to PS for finishing.

However, since CS5 and, probably LR5, I've found they do better with noise and have stopped using DPP at all. And I've since added Imagenomic Noiseware plug in to Photoshop and that works great for the highest ISO images I do.

If you are doing "paid work", you are making key two mistakes.

1. LR is only half the process. There is NO WAY most images can be completely finished in it. PS is necessary, to complement LR and complete image post-processing.

2. You shouldn't do post-processing on a portable tablet or laptop. You need a fixed work-station in controlled and consistent lighting conditions with a calibrated monitor. Otherwise you will constantly mis-adjust your images.

The problem with a tablet or laptop is keeping them calibrated. Ever time you move to a different location with different lighting, you really should be re-calibrating the screen. You also change your viewing angle all too easily with portables, which skews what you are seeing. So even if you were to calibrate every time you move, you'd still have problems.

Some people use an external monitor set up in a permanent location with a laptop. But to do that requires a laptop capable of handling an external monitor and I don't know if this is even a possibility with a tablet.

Your post-processing will be "all over the place", wrong more often than it's right, as long as you're working with an uncalibratable portable.

You might even be better shooting RAW + JPEG and seeing if the JPEGs are better for your customers. (Some customers... particularly commercial users... require 16 bit TIFFs instead of 8 bit JPEGs. They also may need a different color space such as CMYK. Can't do those properly without a calibrated work station.)

In addition, there's a lot of post-process "finishing" work that simply can't be done in LR. Yes, it's a great organizer and is fine for the global adjustments, setting up a crop, straightening and a few other things. But it's fine retouching tools and such are crude by comparison to PS. LR also can't work in layers for selective adjustments. PS and LR are designed to complement each other. I can't recall the last time I exported an image directly from LR and called it "finished". I do export small "proof" and "catalog" size images from LR with only minimal work on them.... But every image that I finish for higher end-use such as a print or a digital file for a customer is ALWAYS handed off from LR to Photoshop for completion.

Worth noting here that as long as a raw file will open in a raw editor it doesn't matter which editor it is. It is possible that Canon has optimized the initial state of the image for immediate viewing in their software, but this is just the initial stage, and unless you never do anything with your raw but convert it straight it doesn't matter. The fact is that LR is tremendously more powerful than any proprietary editor, so if you are going to be doing any kind of PP or optimization you are better off with LR.

I have to disagree with your assertion that it doesn't make any difference which raw editor you use. It can make a big difference, Tests by independent reviewers, as well as many users, have determined that the best raw conversions are done in Capture One Pro 12, DXO PhotoLab, and LR/PS. I've tested nine different raw converters extensively and can confirm that. I currently own licenses for Photolab Elite and ON1 and there is no comparison between the far superior quality of DXO's unedited raw conversions compared to ON1's. I hope over time that the very promising ON1 will improve in that regard.

With regard to DPP, it actually has proprietary lens optimization that only works on Canon lenses and is quite effective. Among the things that optimization of a lens accomplishes is the extraction of a kind of pin point sharpening from a lens without adding any traditional edge contrast. Its as if a slight veil has been lifted from the image. Every image I've ever used it on has benefited. Since no sharpening is actually applied, there are none of the artifacts of sharpening. Canon suggests that sharpening should not be applied prior to lens optimization, but if still necessary it can be added afterwards. DPP allows you to download optimization files for specific lenses as the algorithm applies different set of adjustments for each lens. Unfortunately, no third party lenses are supported.

The Manuf’s software will give you the absolute best color and the most options, because they know the secret to their raw encryption. All the after-market software vendors have to reverse engineer it. However the Manuf’s software is often clunky, slow and crash prone. The differences can be minor and subtle so the question is are you happy with what you have? Have you identified any specific issues for you?

My concern would be editing on a device that is not calibrated. Hopefully you are calibrating your iPad because a color shift due to an out-of-cal display can be a much bigger difference than that between manuf and after-market software renderings.

The good news is the iPads are pretty good out of the box. But if your selling images, you probably would benefit form giving some thought to display calibration and how maintain it.

As to strict raw conversions--you are correct that there are some differences in the way raws are processed into viewable images, this is true. However much has to do with the controls available in the raw editor itself. I've done testing of several raw editors, and own DxO and LR/PS. Differences between those are minor, at the end of the day, although they do start from different places, so to speak.

If the Canon s/w has proprietary algorithms for their lenses, then indeed there is some merit in starting there. Better yet might be to go with DxO, which has modules not only for lenses, but for lenses on various bodies. Those modules, and I guess those in the Canon s/w, are specifically tailored to correct the peccadilloes of various lenses. As to the sharpening, there are various third party solutions that do the same, including Piccure+, Focus Magic, and a new one from Topaz called Sharpen AI, which is truly amazing, but extremely processing intensive.

If the Canon s/w gives the OP enough control of processing parameters, it probably is a better solution for correcting lens faults (though Photoshop also has many profiles in its lens filter). The sad thing is that you can't process in Canon and save out as a raw to work with in LR or PS or DxO. So it's kind of six of one, half dozen of another.