Black Friday: Save 50% on all DXO software products until November 29
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I highly recommend DxO PhotoLab for RAW conversions. Their NR is excellent, along with other tools like ClearView. Personally, I don’t find their library management tools to be that useful (I use Apple Photos for that after exporting jpgs from PL).
If you use UWA lenses, I also recommend ViewPoint – it provides excellent tools to correct subject distortion (not the lens distortion, that’s corrected by PhotoLab), but things like vertical distortion (the falling away of tall buildings) and volume anamorphosis (where people at the edge of an UWA shot look wider than they are).
If you use UWA lenses, I also recommend ViewPoint – it provides excellent tools to correct subject distortion (not the lens distortion, that’s corrected by PhotoLab), but things like vertical distortion (the falling away of tall buildings) and volume anamorphosis (where people at the edge of an UWA shot look wider than they are).
Upvote
0
Any experience with the 2022 On1 NoNoise AI compared to PhotoLab? On1 looks improved.I've been using the trial version of PL5 to export DNGs and then compare it to the CR3s in Lightroom and so far it's been very good. Not €209 good, though. This discount pushes it into the "good enough" bin
Upvote
0
Upgrade pricing is a bit less than 50% of new, and the sale applies there, too, so I paid 23% of full price.I've been using the trial version of PL5 to export DNGs and then compare it to the CR3s in Lightroom and so far it's been very good. Not €209 good, though. This discount pushes it into the "good enough" bin
Upvote
0
Remember that there is a 30-day full-feature trial period that you can use before you pay for the upgrade.
Upvote
0
One note about DxO for users of the RF 14-35/4. The lens requires correction of geometric distortion at the wide end, and with Canon software you get a resulting FoV that is very slightly narrower than 14mm (using the EF 11-24/4L as a benchmark). With Adobe, you get a resulting FoV that is very slightly wider than 14mm. With DxO, you get a resulting FoV that is noticeably wider than 14mm, coming in at ~13.5mm.
www.canonrumors.com
RF 14-35mm f/4L IS – Distortion Correction Testing
Mirrorless cameras lack an optical viewfinder, so looking through the lens is always an electronic process. This fact enables lens manufacturers to include consideration of digital optical corrections in their lens designs and make trade-offs accordingly – more optical aberrations can be...
www.canonrumors.com
Upvote
0
I use on1 a fair bit, the new noise reduction engine is definitely improved... I think its now more or less on par with the other players there.
one thing with ON1 is color profiles.. bad for Canon cameras (80D, R5). I have a work around by using their RAW profile with the LUTs provided by canon for their R5 video.. helps out a lot... however presets tend to not be additive and so remove it, ... bit of a workflow annoyance.
Upvote
0
One note about DxO for users of the RF 14-35/4. The lens requires correction of geometric distortion at the wide end, and with Canon software you get a resulting FoV that is very slightly narrower than 14mm (using the EF 11-24/4L as a benchmark). With Adobe, you get a resulting FoV that is very slightly wider than 14mm. With DxO, you get a resulting FoV that is noticeably wider than 14mm, coming in at ~13.5mm.
RF 14-35mm f/4L IS – Distortion Correction Testing
Mirrorless cameras lack an optical viewfinder, so looking through the lens is always an electronic process. This fact enables lens manufacturers to include consideration of digital optical corrections in their lens designs and make trade-offs accordingly – more optical aberrations can be...
Interesting...
Would the behaviour for the 24-240 be the same? i.e could I squeeze an extra mm or half mm out of the wide end?
Upvote
0
Possibly, it would need to be tested as would the 16/2.8. I don’t have either lens, though, and don’t plan on buying them.
For someone who does have one, it would simply require having DxO (use the free 30-day trial), shooting a reasonably distant subject in RAW+JPG and comparing the DxO-converted RAW to the in-camera JPG. To determine how much wider, one would need a better optically corrected lens for comparison (ideally one where the wide end on the lens in question falls in the middle of the benchmark lens’ range, e.g., a 16-35L to check the wide end of the 24-240).
Upvote
0
Main updates are metadata editing, improved control points (neither of which have much utility for me, personally), and improvement to ClearView. So maybe no need to upgrade if you’re not buying a new camera (I’ll need PL5 for the R3).
If there are significant mid-cycle updates (sometimes there are), you can still get upgrade pricing if not this extra 50% off deal
Upvote
0
Thank you for the reply.
That's pretty much as I saw it and those additions are not ones that inspire me to purchase it despite the high levels of DXO mail in my inbox!
DXO has almost made me Adobe free and just about the only reason I still retain it is because it's roughly the same price as two pints of beer a month.
Cheers!
Upvote
0
I probably made a mistake upgrading yesterday. The new version of DeepPrime eats into detail far more than Prime for noise reduction and is worse than the previous version of DeepPrime. I don't know whether they add new lens modules to older versions. If they don't, then getting a module for my RF 100-400mm will be consolation.
EDIT: On further comparisons, PL5 is an improvement for most real images. I has been looking at extreme pixel levels.
EDIT: On further comparisons, PL5 is an improvement for most real images. I has been looking at extreme pixel levels.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I found this video detailing the main changes (no new surprises, same as what was mentioned already). But seeing it in action (with very little 'extra' commentary) was enough to push me over the edge to get while under $50 (upgrading from 4).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
