DxO Optics--any comments?

[howard b. schwartz]

<p>has anyone tried this product? i have a canon 5d mark ii with most of my lens covered with their software. thanks.</p>

[raymond_ocampo]

<p>I'm a believer of this software since I discovered version 3. It's something I tried and haven't looked back at other software since. Of course it's not an end-all solution, but it cleans up a supported RAW image body+lens combination pretty nice from subtle artifacts, distortion, etc.</p>

<p>It also has pretty weak features like speed processing, plug ins and DAM that you can definitely appreciate from Aperture and Lightroom. I'm just crossing my fingers that they (DxO) can catch up faster.</p>

<p>FilmPack is also a neat feature, but over-priced with it's current limited capability compared to, say, Tiffen DFx.</p>

<p>I believe they have a trial version and something you should try out to see if you like the processing output with it's current features limitations.</p>

<p>Then I would wait for their discount offering which they pretty much offer from time to time.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>V5 has a very bad interface, I upgraded from V4 and hate it</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Software like this is useful when you are useful to them. I'll explain.</p>

<p>I used to use a comparable product called LensFix for the mac. It did wonders for some of my wider angled lens. Then I upgraded my body, and 'boom' no support. The magic I had gotten used to would not be there for me anymore. Unless 'they' decided to support my new camera sometime in the future; "maybe".</p>

<p>I then started to look at this product. I had covered every bit of hardware I needed. A bit wiser, I look at some forums on the net. I noticed people complaining that DXO had dropped support of hardware they had previously supported. This could be very bad.</p>

<p>If my G.A.S. (gear acquisition syndrome) persists, historically I tend to hang on to lens for 20-30 years. Software tends to get upgraded every 2-3 years. If I lock in on a version due to hardware support, my OS will probably not let the software work as it gets "upgraded".</p>

<p>As such with out a commitment from the vendor to "never unsupport supported hardware", I find this kind of software a *really bad investment*. It works well *while* it works. That is not good enough for me. I don't like to introduce something into my work flow that can be made unavailable without my control.</p>

<p>I mention this only for consideration. The industry is changing from "hardware that lasts" to "hardware that gets replaced". The latter being a bit consumption-ish.</p>

<p>Just my thoughts. DXO is a great company with a sold product.</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>I thoroughly agree with Peter. Unlike Photoshop, The DxO disk doesn't even contain any software, but instead is an access code to the software that you then download from their site.</p>

<p>Compnay goes out of business, you don't have anything tangible for you hard earned cash. This is why I was hesitant to part wit $250 US on it.</p>

<p>But I did anyway, and it is <strong>outstanding</strong> software.</p>

[robert goldstein]

<p>I have been using DxO Optics Pro for the past several months, having been a Lightroom fan since it first came out. In terms of RAW conversion, there is no comparison. DxO runs circles around LR and every other RAW converter that I have tried, which includes just about all of the major programs on the market and several minor ones as well. The sharpness, detail and clarity are unmatched, IMO. This is true both for supported and unsupported lenses, but is, of course, especially true for the former. I find that DxO Lighting, which is a kind of fill light with guts, usually gives more pleasing results than I can get with LR. Noise reduction is as good as any that I have seen, and it is done prior to demosaicising, which is said to be a good thing. </p>

<p>The weakness of DOP, in my case, is its color rendering for the Pentax K10D. I just don't like it. For this reason, I leave all of the color modules turned off and then export the files to LR, which does a better job with color. Not all DxO users feel this way about the color, however. I have been able to incorporate both programs into my workflow without much added effort. This also allows me to use LR's file management capabilities.</p>

<p>DOP is designed to work on the principle that preset adjustments can be used to edit the vast majority of images, which is ideal for batch processing. The program comes with several canned presets, but I have created some custom presets of my own which I prefer. It is a simple matter to make individual adjustments to individual images as well, and I find myself doing this with increasing frequency now that I have learned how Exposure Compensation and DxO Lighting work together. I may also do some fine tuning in LR. The DOP user interface is a bit awkward and non-intuitive but can be mastered with only a moderate amount of teeth gnashing.</p>

<p>I have done hundreds of comparison tests of identical image files edited in DxO/LR vs LR alone, and DxO/LR wins by a sizeable margin in 90% of cases. I think that many potential users are put off by DOP's quirky nature, but if you invest sufficient time and effort in trying to understand those quirks, you will be rewarded.</p>

<p>Rob</p>